Is Donald Trump A Modern Day Andrew Jackson? History Video!
Summary: It is pretty much self explanatory. It corresponds nicely with what I wrote about in the forgotten man post. I did not steal Morris' idea. It is a coincidence that what he wrote and I wrote came fairly close to the same thing.
Comment:
However, to cast Trump as the next Andrew Jackson does him and the rest of us a disservice. It feeds the notion that Trump is 'racist' because he allegedly caters only to the white underclass. However, the 'elite' cater to the underclass of all who are not white. They have given up on the white, and use race to divide all against all.
If it is really true, however, then the criticism will stick. Therefore, if there is any truth to it at all, then the only hope for victory is to widen the base.
Trump is trying to unite with the very people who want to destroy him. That will not work out well.
He has his job cut out for him.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
The forgotten man in American politics
In the effort to marginalize Trump voters, the Democrats may be stumbling into trouble by waking up a sleeping giant. Perhaps not the giant of previous times, but still a significant block of voters, if by being continually ignored and insulted, may turn to someone new to lead our country.
That sleeping giant may be the white voter. White people still make up a significant majority of the voters in this country. At present, the white population is evenly divided, which is what the ruling class wants. As long as the native white population is divided against itself, this globalist ruling class can impose their long term strategy upon the rest of us.
The non-white population is incentivized to remain united against racism. But the charge of racism has become empty and meaningless. A simple criticism of a Gold Star Dad does not equal racism. A simple criticism of Barack Hussein Obama does equate to racism. Merely to bring up the facts is not racist. But to silence and marginalize critics is definitely politically correct. Such is the strategy being employed against Trump.
Trump is perceived to be fighting political correctness. In so doing, he has gained millions of new voters and has won the GOP nomination for President of the United States. Evidently, people are fed up with PC, and would prefer a new start. But the old guard does not. The old guard includes those within the GOP, who now seem to have some strange new bedfellows: Democrats and Hillary Clinton. The old guard in the GOP won't fight PC. The old guard in the Democrat party uses PC to marginalize Trump. They have joined an alliance against change. They like things just the way they are. Trouble is, most people in this country think the country is on the wrong track. Evidently, the people want something to change.
The old guard maintains its power by dividing the people against themselves. The charge of racism is meant to marginalize Trump voters, who, if you believe the old guard, consists of white, uneducated, bigoted rednecks. Well, white, bigoted, uneducated rednecks didn't screw up the country. If you think the country is in great shape, they you may be persuaded that no change is necessary. But that flies into the face of the consistently negative polls about the direction of the country.
This is no advocacy of returning to days gone by. No Jim Crow. No Confederacy. There were plenty of good things in the America we once knew. Sure, we got rid of slavery and Jim Crow. But did we have to destroy America, too?
The globalists want to erase all borders. Do we really want to do that? The old guard globalists wants unlimited free trade Is that really in our best interest? Do we want unlimited migration of Muslims, when over half of them favor sharia, which is directly in contradiction of our customs and laws? Is it really racist to ask these questions?
Maybe I am a redneck. But I do have a college degree. I'd like to think I am not so dumb to fall for any more of their rotten tricks. Perhaps you would like to consider another path yourself. I choose Trump.
That sleeping giant may be the white voter. White people still make up a significant majority of the voters in this country. At present, the white population is evenly divided, which is what the ruling class wants. As long as the native white population is divided against itself, this globalist ruling class can impose their long term strategy upon the rest of us.
The non-white population is incentivized to remain united against racism. But the charge of racism has become empty and meaningless. A simple criticism of a Gold Star Dad does not equal racism. A simple criticism of Barack Hussein Obama does equate to racism. Merely to bring up the facts is not racist. But to silence and marginalize critics is definitely politically correct. Such is the strategy being employed against Trump.
Trump is perceived to be fighting political correctness. In so doing, he has gained millions of new voters and has won the GOP nomination for President of the United States. Evidently, people are fed up with PC, and would prefer a new start. But the old guard does not. The old guard includes those within the GOP, who now seem to have some strange new bedfellows: Democrats and Hillary Clinton. The old guard in the GOP won't fight PC. The old guard in the Democrat party uses PC to marginalize Trump. They have joined an alliance against change. They like things just the way they are. Trouble is, most people in this country think the country is on the wrong track. Evidently, the people want something to change.
The old guard maintains its power by dividing the people against themselves. The charge of racism is meant to marginalize Trump voters, who, if you believe the old guard, consists of white, uneducated, bigoted rednecks. Well, white, bigoted, uneducated rednecks didn't screw up the country. If you think the country is in great shape, they you may be persuaded that no change is necessary. But that flies into the face of the consistently negative polls about the direction of the country.
This is no advocacy of returning to days gone by. No Jim Crow. No Confederacy. There were plenty of good things in the America we once knew. Sure, we got rid of slavery and Jim Crow. But did we have to destroy America, too?
The globalists want to erase all borders. Do we really want to do that? The old guard globalists wants unlimited free trade Is that really in our best interest? Do we want unlimited migration of Muslims, when over half of them favor sharia, which is directly in contradiction of our customs and laws? Is it really racist to ask these questions?
Maybe I am a redneck. But I do have a college degree. I'd like to think I am not so dumb to fall for any more of their rotten tricks. Perhaps you would like to consider another path yourself. I choose Trump.
Friday, August 12, 2016
Politics has gone tribal
Can you think of politics as tribalism? If you are a member of the tribe, then it is you against the other. It looks like Trump supporters are being "otherized" into the "bad" tribe, whilst everyone else is in the "good" tribe.
If the bad tribe attacks the good tribe, then all of the good tribal members must unite to defeat the bad tribe.
In our culture today, in order to be in the "good" tribe, you have to anything but an "uneducated" white dude who also happens to profess to be in the Christian faith. Who'd want to be associated with those guys?
The only acceptable white dudes are those who have forsaken Christianity and gone pagan. Can you still be a Christian and be in the "good" tribe? Only if Christianity is "modernized", which means it ceases to be what it once was. Because what it once was wasn't "good".
Examples: Trump attacks Rosie O'Donnell, a member in good standing in the "good" tribe. Even though Trump said nothing against anybody else, this is tantamount to saying that he attacked all the other members of the "good" tribe. That would be women who tend to vote for Democrats.
Example 2: Trump attacks Megyn Kelly. Even though Kelly isn't yet a member of the "good" tribe because she works for "Faux News", she has aspirations of becoming one of the tribe. This is enough to get other prospective tribal members, known as "RINOS" to come out in favor of all women who have been attacked by Trump, even though he only mentioned Kelly.
Those two examples should suffice. You can analyze all of Trump's alleged outrages in this way. A border wall is against all Latinos. Some Latinos are lawbreakers says Trump, but you cannot criticize one Latino without criticizing them all.
Hitler is regarded as an arch villain of the highest rank by all "good" people, but to attack him is not to attack all Austrians, nor all males. But by the tribalist rule, an attack against Hitler is an attack against all Austrians.
Maybe Hitler should have been in the "good" tribe. Trouble is, that what he seemed to think he was doing when he expounded upon the "master race".
Tribalism isn't always good. Unless you are one of the "good" people. If you find yourself "otherized" like the Jews, there's a chance you may end up in an oven.
If the bad tribe attacks the good tribe, then all of the good tribal members must unite to defeat the bad tribe.
In our culture today, in order to be in the "good" tribe, you have to anything but an "uneducated" white dude who also happens to profess to be in the Christian faith. Who'd want to be associated with those guys?
The only acceptable white dudes are those who have forsaken Christianity and gone pagan. Can you still be a Christian and be in the "good" tribe? Only if Christianity is "modernized", which means it ceases to be what it once was. Because what it once was wasn't "good".
Examples: Trump attacks Rosie O'Donnell, a member in good standing in the "good" tribe. Even though Trump said nothing against anybody else, this is tantamount to saying that he attacked all the other members of the "good" tribe. That would be women who tend to vote for Democrats.
Example 2: Trump attacks Megyn Kelly. Even though Kelly isn't yet a member of the "good" tribe because she works for "Faux News", she has aspirations of becoming one of the tribe. This is enough to get other prospective tribal members, known as "RINOS" to come out in favor of all women who have been attacked by Trump, even though he only mentioned Kelly.
Those two examples should suffice. You can analyze all of Trump's alleged outrages in this way. A border wall is against all Latinos. Some Latinos are lawbreakers says Trump, but you cannot criticize one Latino without criticizing them all.
Hitler is regarded as an arch villain of the highest rank by all "good" people, but to attack him is not to attack all Austrians, nor all males. But by the tribalist rule, an attack against Hitler is an attack against all Austrians.
Maybe Hitler should have been in the "good" tribe. Trouble is, that what he seemed to think he was doing when he expounded upon the "master race".
Tribalism isn't always good. Unless you are one of the "good" people. If you find yourself "otherized" like the Jews, there's a chance you may end up in an oven.
Donald Trump’s Valiant Try - by Robert Ringer
Donald Trump’s Valiant Try - by Robert Ringer: The message to Donald Trump over the past couple of weeks has been crystal clear: Welcome to the world of the Washington Crime Syndicate, Mr. Trump. It’s an enterprise that’s a hundred times nastier than the Manhattan real estate business. In fact, it’s the only business I know where it’s generally accepted that everyone lies, …
Comment:
In the choice between dumb and dumber, which do you choose?
Not that I personally think Trump is dumb, but many people think he is. So, I am asking them.
The other options do not exist.
I voted a protest vote against Reagan and Carter in 1980. I figure that the ones who do not like either of these will vote for a third party candidate. However, the GOP cannot afford many, if any defections.
Even if you do not like the GOP, which is my own position, there has to be an alternative to Hillary that has a ghost of a chance of beating her.
The endorsement of GOP candidates was required even if Trump is only using the GOP as a vehicle to get elected. They certainly do not like him, but most are not going to like Hillary any better.
Comment:
In the choice between dumb and dumber, which do you choose?
Not that I personally think Trump is dumb, but many people think he is. So, I am asking them.
The other options do not exist.
I voted a protest vote against Reagan and Carter in 1980. I figure that the ones who do not like either of these will vote for a third party candidate. However, the GOP cannot afford many, if any defections.
Even if you do not like the GOP, which is my own position, there has to be an alternative to Hillary that has a ghost of a chance of beating her.
The endorsement of GOP candidates was required even if Trump is only using the GOP as a vehicle to get elected. They certainly do not like him, but most are not going to like Hillary any better.
Back to the android
The Windows machine is updating. In the meantime, I will use this sorry Android system to type in this post.
Actually, it isn't too much worse than the Windows piece of junk.
With reference to junk, the reason I am sore is in no doubt attributable to my air mattress situation. Air mattresses are junk. I am on my fourth one, and all four have sprung leaks after only a short time.
I woke up on this thing and it was nearly flat, and my soreness was worse.
Time to try something different. I like the mattresses when they work. Unfortunately, they tend to fail. Not good when they fail.
I made a doctor's appointment. Long overdue. Finally, maybe some answers can be found.
I have to get there first, though. It is really hard to drive with this thing hurting the way it does.
Riding with someone is no solution either. Only if I can lie down.
On what? I have a cot and it seems to be somewhat better then the floor!
Seriously, the cot would maybe be okay if I could raise it higher. I am considering making a platform for it to sit on. Does it need to be softer? Not sure. Pressure points are the problem. If this thing doesn't aggravate those sensitive regions, this solution may work.
Actually, it isn't too much worse than the Windows piece of junk.
With reference to junk, the reason I am sore is in no doubt attributable to my air mattress situation. Air mattresses are junk. I am on my fourth one, and all four have sprung leaks after only a short time.
I woke up on this thing and it was nearly flat, and my soreness was worse.
Time to try something different. I like the mattresses when they work. Unfortunately, they tend to fail. Not good when they fail.
I made a doctor's appointment. Long overdue. Finally, maybe some answers can be found.
I have to get there first, though. It is really hard to drive with this thing hurting the way it does.
Riding with someone is no solution either. Only if I can lie down.
On what? I have a cot and it seems to be somewhat better then the floor!
Seriously, the cot would maybe be okay if I could raise it higher. I am considering making a platform for it to sit on. Does it need to be softer? Not sure. Pressure points are the problem. If this thing doesn't aggravate those sensitive regions, this solution may work.
We're being conned into submission
This Khan business is a con. It is being aided and abetted by the current power structure that is perpetrating this nonsense.
The current power structure is conducting a long running coup against the Constitution of the United States. They are pleased to call it interpretation. It is a unlawful rewrite of the Constitution, for such is not allowed anywhere in the document. If there is to be a lawful change in the charter of our government, it must follow the amendment process given by that document. Anything other than this skirts very close to sedition.
The sedition is part of a longer term process that is tantamount to the overthrow of the Constitution itself. The Khan business fits into that process. It works hand in hand with "political correctness". We are being "Khanned" folks. The criticism of Khan is protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, so how does the attempt to silence any criticism of this Khan character consistent with that law? If a Presidential candidate cannot speak freely, then who can?
The play on words with the man's name conveys the dishonesty of the whole enterprise. We are being lied to. It does not dishonor Khan's son's sacrifice to criticize his father. Indeed, men have died "face down in the mud" in order to defend the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which is in the Constitution. The Constitution requires that all who serve under it must declare an oath to defend it--- against all enemies --- foreign and domestic. Therefore, to silence someone, or any attempt to silence someone, or anyone, for that matter, does not honor the sacrifice- but does the opposite.
It is now becoming politically incorrect to criticize a Gold Star parent. When did that happen? How did that happen? It has happened because too many people are letting themselves be silenced. A claim is made, and is backed up by the threat of punishment. The punishment here is political oblivion. Any politically incorrect candidate must now steer clear of Gold Star parents no matter what. Supposedly, they are beyond reproach for anything they say, unless you are politically correct ( because Hillary did it too). On the other hand, it could be challenged, in the way that Trump challenged it, and has continually challenged such political correctness. Political correctness seeks to silence opposition. It is not in keeping with the Constitution, which protects free speech, nor does it honor those who have defended those rights enumerated therein throughout the years.
All of our rights under the Constitution are being swept away. The right to trial by jury, to keep and bear arms, to own property and do with it what we please, and yes, the right to free speech, and freedom of religion. At least we still have the right to burn the flag. The Supreme Court has said so.
In Khan's case, he knows about sharia because he has written on the subject. Islam does not permit dissent---this is sharia. Those who commit apostasy are subject to execution under sharia. Khan must know this. Indeed, all Muslims must know this. The majority of Muslims favor sharia. Are we now forbidden to criticize those who favor sharia just because Mr. Khan's son died in a war to defend the very rights that Khan ( with help from his politically correct friends) is now trying to deny all Americans? This is the con job. Do not let yourself be "Khanned" into submission. Islam means submission, Muslim means those who submit. DO NOT SUBMIT.
The current power structure is conducting a long running coup against the Constitution of the United States. They are pleased to call it interpretation. It is a unlawful rewrite of the Constitution, for such is not allowed anywhere in the document. If there is to be a lawful change in the charter of our government, it must follow the amendment process given by that document. Anything other than this skirts very close to sedition.
The sedition is part of a longer term process that is tantamount to the overthrow of the Constitution itself. The Khan business fits into that process. It works hand in hand with "political correctness". We are being "Khanned" folks. The criticism of Khan is protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, so how does the attempt to silence any criticism of this Khan character consistent with that law? If a Presidential candidate cannot speak freely, then who can?
The play on words with the man's name conveys the dishonesty of the whole enterprise. We are being lied to. It does not dishonor Khan's son's sacrifice to criticize his father. Indeed, men have died "face down in the mud" in order to defend the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which is in the Constitution. The Constitution requires that all who serve under it must declare an oath to defend it--- against all enemies --- foreign and domestic. Therefore, to silence someone, or any attempt to silence someone, or anyone, for that matter, does not honor the sacrifice- but does the opposite.
It is now becoming politically incorrect to criticize a Gold Star parent. When did that happen? How did that happen? It has happened because too many people are letting themselves be silenced. A claim is made, and is backed up by the threat of punishment. The punishment here is political oblivion. Any politically incorrect candidate must now steer clear of Gold Star parents no matter what. Supposedly, they are beyond reproach for anything they say, unless you are politically correct ( because Hillary did it too). On the other hand, it could be challenged, in the way that Trump challenged it, and has continually challenged such political correctness. Political correctness seeks to silence opposition. It is not in keeping with the Constitution, which protects free speech, nor does it honor those who have defended those rights enumerated therein throughout the years.
All of our rights under the Constitution are being swept away. The right to trial by jury, to keep and bear arms, to own property and do with it what we please, and yes, the right to free speech, and freedom of religion. At least we still have the right to burn the flag. The Supreme Court has said so.
In Khan's case, he knows about sharia because he has written on the subject. Islam does not permit dissent---this is sharia. Those who commit apostasy are subject to execution under sharia. Khan must know this. Indeed, all Muslims must know this. The majority of Muslims favor sharia. Are we now forbidden to criticize those who favor sharia just because Mr. Khan's son died in a war to defend the very rights that Khan ( with help from his politically correct friends) is now trying to deny all Americans? This is the con job. Do not let yourself be "Khanned" into submission. Islam means submission, Muslim means those who submit. DO NOT SUBMIT.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
For anyone new here, read this
If you are interested in a particular topic, click on that topic or subtopic in the label cloud to the left in the sidebar.
Since I just changed the label, this could be used as an example. In the word cloud look up Molten Salt Reactors there on the left sidebar. Click on it, and a page full of posts comes up on that topic.
With respect to Molten Salt Reactors, this one should catch your attention: Indonesia will build an MSR with tech developed in the seventies right here in Oak Ridge Tennessee USA. (Links in bold, like in this paragraph, will take you directly to a link in this blog.) Too bad that this couldn't have been done in the USA 40 years ago. It will touted as new tech, but it really isn't new. What's new is that somebody will finally do something about it.
You can also click on index for navigating this blog on the left sidebar.
Since I just changed the label, this could be used as an example. In the word cloud look up Molten Salt Reactors there on the left sidebar. Click on it, and a page full of posts comes up on that topic.
With respect to Molten Salt Reactors, this one should catch your attention: Indonesia will build an MSR with tech developed in the seventies right here in Oak Ridge Tennessee USA. (Links in bold, like in this paragraph, will take you directly to a link in this blog.) Too bad that this couldn't have been done in the USA 40 years ago. It will touted as new tech, but it really isn't new. What's new is that somebody will finally do something about it.
You can also click on index for navigating this blog on the left sidebar.
Obligatory, 8.11.16
There's so many things on my mind right now, that it is hard to crystallize into one single post. Hence, the obligatory title.
I am sore again. I must take time off from work so as to mend this ailment so as to sufficiently allow me to go back. These attacks are coming frequently now, so I am quite sure that, unless I can come up with a way to significantly reduce costs, I will have to give up on my plans to go off grid.
I have a few ideas, of course. Perhaps one of them could work.
One of the themes of this blog has always been this: to find solutions to our common problems. I look upon my physical challenges as a special problem of my very own which I must solve. On a larger scale, the current events of the day are also special problems which I think are urgent and in need of a solution soon, or we will be entering a grave trial of the most difficult kind.
On the larger scene, I don't think globalism is working in its present configuration. Perhaps a common ground can be reached between Trump and the globalists that can allow him to unify enough people behind him in order to win the presidency. Unchecked globalism is definitely not the ticket. Supporting Hillary because she supports globalism is why globalism must be checked. Hillary is corrupt, and at best incompetent. The email situation demonstrates both quite clearly.
Also on a larger scene, Hillary is definitely not acceptable because she doesn't serve the constitution, but rather her own interests and her supporters. We do not elect monarchs nor emperors. The chief magistrate of this country is subordinate to the constitution, not the other way around.
As for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and perhaps other Persian Gulf states, their influence on our body politic must come to an end. Are we really at war with ISIS, or with these countries? These countries are supporting ISIS in some way, or supporting fundamentalist Shia Islam, as the case is with Iran. That alone should be a casus belli.
The globalists are also pushing us into a war with Russia. Is this really necessary? The hostility to Russia is an artifact of the Cold War. The alliance with Turkey, which is becoming radicalized and Islamist, is also out of date.
NATO should be retooled, reconfigured, or abandoned if that is not possible to adjust it to modern conditions.
We should push forward at the greatest speed the adoption of molten-salt nuclear reactors. This is long overdue. The world need not depend upon oil from the volatile and hostile Middle Eastern Islamists countries.
I think Trump comes closest to these thoughts. I will support him enthusiastically.
If he loses because of the globalists' power and influence is still too great to overcome, then so be it. The fight must go on.
As for me, I need to solve my own problems. The world will little note what I write here, with so small an audience. That's okay. Trump has our back, I hope.
I am sore again. I must take time off from work so as to mend this ailment so as to sufficiently allow me to go back. These attacks are coming frequently now, so I am quite sure that, unless I can come up with a way to significantly reduce costs, I will have to give up on my plans to go off grid.
I have a few ideas, of course. Perhaps one of them could work.
One of the themes of this blog has always been this: to find solutions to our common problems. I look upon my physical challenges as a special problem of my very own which I must solve. On a larger scale, the current events of the day are also special problems which I think are urgent and in need of a solution soon, or we will be entering a grave trial of the most difficult kind.
On the larger scene, I don't think globalism is working in its present configuration. Perhaps a common ground can be reached between Trump and the globalists that can allow him to unify enough people behind him in order to win the presidency. Unchecked globalism is definitely not the ticket. Supporting Hillary because she supports globalism is why globalism must be checked. Hillary is corrupt, and at best incompetent. The email situation demonstrates both quite clearly.
Also on a larger scene, Hillary is definitely not acceptable because she doesn't serve the constitution, but rather her own interests and her supporters. We do not elect monarchs nor emperors. The chief magistrate of this country is subordinate to the constitution, not the other way around.
As for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and perhaps other Persian Gulf states, their influence on our body politic must come to an end. Are we really at war with ISIS, or with these countries? These countries are supporting ISIS in some way, or supporting fundamentalist Shia Islam, as the case is with Iran. That alone should be a casus belli.
The globalists are also pushing us into a war with Russia. Is this really necessary? The hostility to Russia is an artifact of the Cold War. The alliance with Turkey, which is becoming radicalized and Islamist, is also out of date.
NATO should be retooled, reconfigured, or abandoned if that is not possible to adjust it to modern conditions.
We should push forward at the greatest speed the adoption of molten-salt nuclear reactors. This is long overdue. The world need not depend upon oil from the volatile and hostile Middle Eastern Islamists countries.
I think Trump comes closest to these thoughts. I will support him enthusiastically.
If he loses because of the globalists' power and influence is still too great to overcome, then so be it. The fight must go on.
As for me, I need to solve my own problems. The world will little note what I write here, with so small an audience. That's okay. Trump has our back, I hope.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Declaration of Independence
Not that it means anything anymore, but here is a snippet from that document...
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
The Smoking Gun In The Clinton Foundation Scandal – Lunch Alert!
The Smoking Gun In The Clinton Foundation Scandal – Lunch Alert!
summary:
One of the deleted Hillary emails shows in detail a "pay for play" quid pro quo of money for favors while Hillary was at the State Dept.
comment:
Maybe this will make a difference. I'm not so sure that it will, but it is better to be optimistic than not.
summary:
One of the deleted Hillary emails shows in detail a "pay for play" quid pro quo of money for favors while Hillary was at the State Dept.
comment:
Maybe this will make a difference. I'm not so sure that it will, but it is better to be optimistic than not.
Clinton says violence should always be off the table
Unless it is a Gold Star Dad, then you must obey the Sultan of Khan.
If you disobey the Khan, off with your head!
What's the Second Amendment for, by the way? Oh, I don't know. Maybe it is out of date and we should get rid of it. We can always trust our leaders to do the right thing. / deep sarcasm
Update:
I thought Trump was a fighter. A fighter wouldn't say "gimme a break". This is a war ( politics is war by other means ). If you aren't prepared for a war, you will certainly lose it. To the Democrats, "gimme a break" should sound like "uncle".
Update:
Biden did the same thing ( or worse ) in 2008, but there was no big deal.
Update:
Another phony outrage. They are keeping score, as if the score meant anything. If the "outrages" had any substance, they'd mean something. It's the same old same old I saw in the primaries. If they can't take the nomination away from Trump, they'll try to force him to step down. If they can't defeat him at the polls, they will try to assassinate him themselves!
If you disobey the Khan, off with your head!
What's the Second Amendment for, by the way? Oh, I don't know. Maybe it is out of date and we should get rid of it. We can always trust our leaders to do the right thing. / deep sarcasm
Update:
I thought Trump was a fighter. A fighter wouldn't say "gimme a break". This is a war ( politics is war by other means ). If you aren't prepared for a war, you will certainly lose it. To the Democrats, "gimme a break" should sound like "uncle".
Update:
Biden did the same thing ( or worse ) in 2008, but there was no big deal.
Update:
Another phony outrage. They are keeping score, as if the score meant anything. If the "outrages" had any substance, they'd mean something. It's the same old same old I saw in the primaries. If they can't take the nomination away from Trump, they'll try to force him to step down. If they can't defeat him at the polls, they will try to assassinate him themselves!
Ann Barnhardt is not a friend to the US Constitution
That is why I removed her link from the sidebar.
I have removed other links in the past, and sometimes, I put them back up. Dick Morris got canned for awhile, but his is back. Instapundit is gone. Ace of Spades is gone.
Really, an argument that we have no rule of law rings hollow when you say that the Constitution is illegitimate in the first place.
Actually, not only is Barnhardt unfriendly to the sovereign of our country, but so is just about everybody else. If she said that in regret, I would recognize it as an honest statement. Otherwise, it is not.
We may as well have a con-con, because our current form of government is going to change anyway.
If the Constitution had any friends, they would at least let it have a decent burial.
I have removed other links in the past, and sometimes, I put them back up. Dick Morris got canned for awhile, but his is back. Instapundit is gone. Ace of Spades is gone.
Really, an argument that we have no rule of law rings hollow when you say that the Constitution is illegitimate in the first place.
Actually, not only is Barnhardt unfriendly to the sovereign of our country, but so is just about everybody else. If she said that in regret, I would recognize it as an honest statement. Otherwise, it is not.
We may as well have a con-con, because our current form of government is going to change anyway.
If the Constitution had any friends, they would at least let it have a decent burial.
Instapundit says nobody is trying to win
Well, with all the sniping coming from guys like him, and George Will, it can be seen who doesn't want Trump to win this thing. In other words, since they cannot bring themselves to support Trump, they will get Hillary by default, and it looks like they want it that way.
Does he really believe that he will bring people around to his point of view that way?
The third party candidates cannot win. But the GOP certainly knows how to lose. They do not maintain discipline within the ranks. If Trump is undisciplined in his speech, how does their undisciplined speech against him offer any help?
So, Reynolds really wants to criticize Trump for the Second Amendment comments?
He doesn't in his post on USA Today, but then again, he sets the table for the opposition with his sniping. Clearly, he doesn't want Trump to win.
Certainly helps him get a gig like USA Today. Like Will on This Week and at the Washington Post.
Update:
Reynolds has said the same thing Trump said in his Second Amendment remarks. Now, Speaker Ryan is saying unsupportive things about Trump. So does that mean that they will not oppose in any meaningful way, the confiscation of guns?
There's a credibility gap growing here.
Does he really believe that he will bring people around to his point of view that way?
The third party candidates cannot win. But the GOP certainly knows how to lose. They do not maintain discipline within the ranks. If Trump is undisciplined in his speech, how does their undisciplined speech against him offer any help?
So, Reynolds really wants to criticize Trump for the Second Amendment comments?
He doesn't in his post on USA Today, but then again, he sets the table for the opposition with his sniping. Clearly, he doesn't want Trump to win.
Certainly helps him get a gig like USA Today. Like Will on This Week and at the Washington Post.
Update:
Reynolds has said the same thing Trump said in his Second Amendment remarks. Now, Speaker Ryan is saying unsupportive things about Trump. So does that mean that they will not oppose in any meaningful way, the confiscation of guns?
There's a credibility gap growing here.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
US oil producers can now compete on production costs with Saudi Arabia ?
According to this article on Al Fin's blog.
It has been and still is my considered opinion that energy is key. If the frackers can frack up enough oil to make the USA energy independent, it will be "yuge".
I heard differently on the costs of fracking, though. It is a surprise to read that this might be a real possibility-- that USA frackers can compete on costs with the low cost producers up until recently.
Whoever is the low cost producer is going to be king of the oil patch. Saudi Arabia may about to be dethroned.
It has been and still is my considered opinion that energy is key. If the frackers can frack up enough oil to make the USA energy independent, it will be "yuge".
I heard differently on the costs of fracking, though. It is a surprise to read that this might be a real possibility-- that USA frackers can compete on costs with the low cost producers up until recently.
Whoever is the low cost producer is going to be king of the oil patch. Saudi Arabia may about to be dethroned.
On the tax strike subject
Barnhardt not only says that the Republic is kaputski, but the only peaceful way to oppose it is through a tax strike.
There's no way you are going to get people to that point if they won't even get on their hind legs and exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.
Trump said something amongst the many things that he has said, and now we are being told, by our "leadership" class no less, that nobody has the right to criticize a Gold Star Dad. If Trump cannot say anything against a Gold Star Dad, nobody can. If he cannot do it now, even though it involves national security and the rule of law, when can anybody say it anytime?
The Gold Star controversy is about ending your First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is still the law, and since it is law, it is about the Rule of Law.
If you cannot get people to acknowledge that Trump had every right to say what he did, then how then are you are going to get people to join a tax strike?
If the country's leadership has already crossed the Rubicon, should we be well beyond a tax strike?
A tax strike will only call some attention to a problem. It doesn't solve anything.
We can still protest our government by First Amendment rights, but only if we exercise those rights. Abridging them any time to anybody might as well end it for everyone. If our leaders have truly crossed the Rubicon, then at some point, they are going to start to stop pretending that they will honor the First Amendment. Right now, we can still talk freely, but that is being openly challenged by our "leaders". That time for exercising your rights has come.
Time to get up on your hind legs and say something while you still can.
There's no way you are going to get people to that point if they won't even get on their hind legs and exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.
Trump said something amongst the many things that he has said, and now we are being told, by our "leadership" class no less, that nobody has the right to criticize a Gold Star Dad. If Trump cannot say anything against a Gold Star Dad, nobody can. If he cannot do it now, even though it involves national security and the rule of law, when can anybody say it anytime?
The Gold Star controversy is about ending your First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is still the law, and since it is law, it is about the Rule of Law.
If you cannot get people to acknowledge that Trump had every right to say what he did, then how then are you are going to get people to join a tax strike?
If the country's leadership has already crossed the Rubicon, should we be well beyond a tax strike?
A tax strike will only call some attention to a problem. It doesn't solve anything.
We can still protest our government by First Amendment rights, but only if we exercise those rights. Abridging them any time to anybody might as well end it for everyone. If our leaders have truly crossed the Rubicon, then at some point, they are going to start to stop pretending that they will honor the First Amendment. Right now, we can still talk freely, but that is being openly challenged by our "leaders". That time for exercising your rights has come.
Time to get up on your hind legs and say something while you still can.
Modifications to the Van to RV conversion
Prev Next
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
Since I will need the van for access to the property, and can also use for on the property as well, I think I should limit what goes into the van. Only the essentials.
I need a place for clothes. I need to store water. I need refrigeration. I need to cook. I need to clean up. I need to sleep. I need a restroom. I will still need to haul stuff around.
How to cover these needs?
When I chopped up one of my computer desks, I conceived an idea for a clothes closet. That idea can be useful.
I can put a barrel in for water.
I can keep the freezer. The microwave will help me cook.
Sleeping can be overhead.
Cleaning up and using the restroom will be a challenge. I may have to use outside facilities. I was thinking of using a washtub! The washtub would be used inside the van. Did you think I would use it outside? Space is restricted, so putting all this in such a limited space can be a challenge.
I could put the washtub up above and the toilet up above until needed.
The bed can be an inflatable that won't get in the way when deflated.
More wrath of Khan
Keister Khan has opened his pie hole again.
Every time he opens his mouth, he presents an opportunity. He is giving the GOP a golden opportunity to clobber the Democrats. Instead of getting mau-mau'ed into silence.
The Keister has written about Sharia. Evidently, he knows about it. Consequently, he must have an opinion about it. Yes to Sharia, or No to Sharia. Inquiring minds should like to know.
If nobody here knows what Sharia is, ask the Keister to explain it all for us. He must know what it is.
He should explain his Saudi connections. He should explain his connections to corrupt immigration practices, which involve bribery for the ability to immigrate here. People should be reminded that Saudi money financed the 911 terrorists.
The Keister wants to run for office. Should a man like this even be in this country?
Every time he opens his mouth, he presents an opportunity. He is giving the GOP a golden opportunity to clobber the Democrats. Instead of getting mau-mau'ed into silence.
The Keister has written about Sharia. Evidently, he knows about it. Consequently, he must have an opinion about it. Yes to Sharia, or No to Sharia. Inquiring minds should like to know.
If nobody here knows what Sharia is, ask the Keister to explain it all for us. He must know what it is.
He should explain his Saudi connections. He should explain his connections to corrupt immigration practices, which involve bribery for the ability to immigrate here. People should be reminded that Saudi money financed the 911 terrorists.
The Keister wants to run for office. Should a man like this even be in this country?
Something has to change
In fact, a lot of changes will have to made around here in BNO land.
A look at my finances does not encourage me. Some cutbacks are going to have to be made. The problem is that I am already down to the bone. The stuff I cut back on for now on will be painful to make.
One thing that may have to go is this blog. Or considerable bandwidth will have to be given up in order to save money. Internet service may seem cheap when you are making the bucks, but when you are not making enough, something will have to go.
Of course, the thought of moving out of here and living on my land comes to mind. But that project hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. The thought of giving up on that also comes to mind. I am hanging on by a thread on that one. A year out still before the SS checks and it may as well be a century.
I have bandied about all sorts of ideas to make that work, but in order to make it work, I will have to live a lot differently than I am accustomed. Frankly, I don't know if I can do it. But other options will require a big change, too.
The timetable looks too extended as well. Things may need to happen faster than I am currently planning on.
A look at my finances does not encourage me. Some cutbacks are going to have to be made. The problem is that I am already down to the bone. The stuff I cut back on for now on will be painful to make.
One thing that may have to go is this blog. Or considerable bandwidth will have to be given up in order to save money. Internet service may seem cheap when you are making the bucks, but when you are not making enough, something will have to go.
Of course, the thought of moving out of here and living on my land comes to mind. But that project hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. The thought of giving up on that also comes to mind. I am hanging on by a thread on that one. A year out still before the SS checks and it may as well be a century.
I have bandied about all sorts of ideas to make that work, but in order to make it work, I will have to live a lot differently than I am accustomed. Frankly, I don't know if I can do it. But other options will require a big change, too.
The timetable looks too extended as well. Things may need to happen faster than I am currently planning on.
Monday, August 8, 2016
More building ideas
Prev Next
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
This post will go into the Construction sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
When I left off last time, I ruled out the Quonset idea. Not so fast. Also, some time ago, I had ruled out using prefabbed storage sheds. Not so fast, either. I think it may be possible to combine the ideas, so as to get a small shack that may be livable.
As you are assembling the prefabbed shed, the cattle panels can go in before you put in the roof. This hasn't been attempted before, so I don't know if it will work.
You can roll up the tarp so that it can be manageable in the wind. Insulation can be placed between the tarp and the roof. The back wall and front wall must take some planning in order to execute.
I've seen some solid sheets of insulation that may be applied and fitted to the back walls and front door. It may be possible to fit those in there.
The cattle panels aren't expensive. The prefabbed shed should not cost all that much. Moreover, it will be easier to transport, and put together ( I presume.)
The tricky part is to insulate it. Rather than use sheet rock, I'd use the cattle panels and tarp.
It's an idea. It might work. But it hasn't been tried.
On the nature of men and what to do about it
Barnhardt is in the firm opinion that this Republic of ours is deader than hell.
With that in mind, I'd like to share something in memory, which those of you who actually read this blog, may deem worthy of consideration. Since it is from memory, and I haven't the inclination to look it up, it may have some inaccuracies in it. But the gist of it is likely more correct than not.
It goes like this: If men were angels, government would not be necessary. If angels governed men, there would be a perfect government. Since men are imperfect and are obliged to govern other imperfect men, the best government would be the government that could control men; and whereas governments are necessary to govern imperfect men, it is also necessary to have that same government be able to control itself.
That is probably why the Framers of the Constitution of the United States felt it necessary to divide government against itself into a system of checks and balances. As long as those checks and balances were operational, we had the best government that could be expected from the wisdom of men.
It seems to me that this is no longer the case. That is to say, the checks and balances are not checking and balancing anymore. This government is no longer the best that could be expected from the wisdom of men, and is now out of control. I don't know if that means that I agree with Miss Barnhardt, only that this appears to me to be the case right now.
In other words, what we may have here is the ending of a drama which is going to be played out into the immediate future. Either this government gets itself back into control, or the Republic is truly dead. The leaders of this country will have "crossed the Rubicon" if they fail.
My question is whether or not it is still possible for it to be brought back into control. Obviously, she doesn't think so.
With that in mind, I'd like to share something in memory, which those of you who actually read this blog, may deem worthy of consideration. Since it is from memory, and I haven't the inclination to look it up, it may have some inaccuracies in it. But the gist of it is likely more correct than not.
It goes like this: If men were angels, government would not be necessary. If angels governed men, there would be a perfect government. Since men are imperfect and are obliged to govern other imperfect men, the best government would be the government that could control men; and whereas governments are necessary to govern imperfect men, it is also necessary to have that same government be able to control itself.
That is probably why the Framers of the Constitution of the United States felt it necessary to divide government against itself into a system of checks and balances. As long as those checks and balances were operational, we had the best government that could be expected from the wisdom of men.
It seems to me that this is no longer the case. That is to say, the checks and balances are not checking and balancing anymore. This government is no longer the best that could be expected from the wisdom of men, and is now out of control. I don't know if that means that I agree with Miss Barnhardt, only that this appears to me to be the case right now.
In other words, what we may have here is the ending of a drama which is going to be played out into the immediate future. Either this government gets itself back into control, or the Republic is truly dead. The leaders of this country will have "crossed the Rubicon" if they fail.
My question is whether or not it is still possible for it to be brought back into control. Obviously, she doesn't think so.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Trump endorses Ryan, McCain
On the surface, it looks like the Establishment has won this round. But note that Trump only endorsed these two after doing to them what they did to him. He pointedly withheld endorsement, and left them in limbo for awhile. I take that to mean that a message has been sent.
Frankly, I'd prefer an all-out war with these renegades, but that isn't in the cards. Besides, if there were such a war within the party, victory will be impossible. In other words, this endorsement was necessary.
Victory may be remote in any case, but it is still possible. How? At this point, it may be hard to see, but stranger things have happened.
By the way, the party treats Trump as the renegade. But who won the most votes? In that case, the true renegades are in the Establishment.
The renegades are trying to marginalize Trump even though they are the minority within this party. If Trump can show that they are the minority in the country as well, he may well be able to win after all.
When it comes to Sharia and National Security, Trump can win. The majority will not want Sharia, and National Security may figure more highly in this election. The Gold Star flap was not about race, it was about National Security. It was also about the rule of law, in which Sharia stands in direct contradiction.
Too bad Ryan and McCain don't get it.
Frankly, I'd prefer an all-out war with these renegades, but that isn't in the cards. Besides, if there were such a war within the party, victory will be impossible. In other words, this endorsement was necessary.
Victory may be remote in any case, but it is still possible. How? At this point, it may be hard to see, but stranger things have happened.
By the way, the party treats Trump as the renegade. But who won the most votes? In that case, the true renegades are in the Establishment.
The renegades are trying to marginalize Trump even though they are the minority within this party. If Trump can show that they are the minority in the country as well, he may well be able to win after all.
When it comes to Sharia and National Security, Trump can win. The majority will not want Sharia, and National Security may figure more highly in this election. The Gold Star flap was not about race, it was about National Security. It was also about the rule of law, in which Sharia stands in direct contradiction.
Too bad Ryan and McCain don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)