Donna Brazile says the Choice is between 1950's and, .... what exactly?

Choice between 1950's and what exactly?

If it's between what she charactizes as 1950's, then how should we characterize what the leftists are doing to this country today? Is it not the choice between the 1950's, and Sodom and Gomorrah? Drag queen shows for little kids? Are you freaking kidding me?

Since Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, I think the choice should be a no-brainer.

Bottom up or top down?

 

Here's another post that doesn't really say anything new, but maybe it can be written in a way that can encourage those who may be interested to think about it a little differently. Perhaps more constructively as well, but that may be ambitious.

At a State of the Union address during the Reagan Presidency, the then President said that there were three words in the Constitution that makes us different than any other country---"We the People". Back in the days when the Constitution was being written, there was talk about making George Washington the King of the newly minted country called the United States. Instead, George Washington presided over the Convention which gave the country a completely different way of governance. That governance was meant to be from the people, and not to the people. Power and sovereignty flowed FROM the people--- as opposed to the other way around. Prior to that, it was the other way around. To a large extent, it is still true today.

This dynamic is being played out this very day in the discussion about a certain event that happened on January 6th, 2021. For some, it was called an "insurrection". To others, it is called a "riot", or "disturbance". The event itself wasn't much of an "insurrection", as nobody was armed. This is part of the point I wish to address here. For it is this: Where is the "sovereignty" that is being violated, if the violation is said to be insurrectionary? The people who came to that place on January 6th weren't trying to overturn the Constitution, nor any of its laws. The were merely contesting the manner in which the laws were being applied. This hardly seems insurrectionary, nor revolutionary. For if this is a nation of laws, it is certainly game to question HOW those laws are being enforced.

On the other hand, if it is a nation of MEN, then it IS insurrectionary to question the AUTHORITY of those in power. The notion of where power comes from is at issue here. It isn't even about who won the election. It is about how its LAWS are to be enforced. If the group that came there could be satisfied with the accuracy and fidelity to law, and protested ANYWAY, then there's a problem. However, there is good reason to question how the laws are being carried out. A tyrant will brook no opposition. Whereas, in a DEMOCRACY, the will of the people is the sovereign. This is opposed to anyone who should try to USURP authority, no matter where the source comes from, from within or without.

In short, if the people truly got the hearing they should have gotten, then there would be no reasonable basis to which to object. But that didn't happen. The courts sidestepped the issue, and still are.

If the courts cannot be relied upon, then what can? In the absence of leadership, a vacuum occurred, and nature abhors a vaccuum. There could have been a reasonable outcome to all this, but that was not allowed. There was still two weeks before inauguration day, and the Constitution provided a way to decide who was to be president if the election could yield no outcome. Was time really that critical at that moment?

Some would argue that that way was taken. But was it necessary those who participated in the "riot" as being somehow guilty of prevented the lawful performance of any duty? For a few hours perhaps, but is that really that critical?

A nation of laws could handle such a situation. But a nation of men can brook no dissent. The hammer must come down and come down hard. The "strongman" cannot allow anyone to challenge his authority. But what harm is there if the standard is the law? If authority comes from the law, and the challenge is found to be in error, then any further disturbance is not to be allowed. But did these people really mean to challenge the law itself? If not, then how can it be insurrection?

Words may fail me. It has always seemed to me that the controversy could have been handled in a better way, and somebody wanted trouble. The courts dropped the ball- did they intend to? Maybe the fix was in, but if it was really fixed, then whatever the people think doesn't really matter, now does it? If so, the Constitution that George Washington intended for the USA to have, is no longer in effect. It is now a nation of MEN, not laws. Those in charge would like to pretend otherwise, but reality says otherwise. What we are seeing is an USURPATION, not a continuation. If it is now a nation of MEN, then there has been a coup.

Briefly, a nation of laws would permit dissent on the basis of law. A nation of men would permit no dissent at all. The sovereignty gives the authority. If the true authority is in MEN, then MEN cannot tolerate dissent. Only a nation of laws can permit dissent, because it is in dissent that the law can be ascertained for what it is, and what it can do. A nation of MEN cannot afford that. A nation of laws DEPENDS upon it. A nation of laws is bottom up, that gets its authority from the people. Top down governance proceeds from the strong man, always has, and always will.

Yellow Stain Blues

Re-posted without comment:

6-13-19

Strawberries, anyone?

Yep.  The Captain Queeg crew is looking for the non-existent key in order to solve the mystery of the missing strawberries.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

Caine Mutiny Yellow Stain Blues_ https://t.co/BGSadidDfl

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 3, 2019

Insane

Update: NY District Attorney wants to arrest Trump

The lemmings are going over the ledge now. The insanity has gone into terminal mode.

The only corrective over the most recent past is an election, and the hope that the people will come to their senses. Well, the latter is iffy, and the former is being eliminated. There probably won't be an election in 2024, and if there is, it won't be any cleaner than the last one. If anything, it will be worse.

Trump will be arrested for political purposes and motivations. There is no issue here worth going after the former head of state. Paying off a porn star who was extorting him?

These people are nuts. They're driving the entire country off the cliff. There won't be any coming back from this.

Jan 15, 2021 They are insane

Byron York has an article out about the coming Senate trial to ban Trump from holding office again.

How can there be any doubt that these people are criminally insane? They stole the election, prevented the challenge process with a false-flag op, and now they want to leverage it into a ban upon Trump ever running again.

York says that Dems are going to claim that all they need for the ban against Trump is a majority. The trial is moot, so how can there be a vote on a ban?

They are insane.

Checking in, 3-17-22

Let's start off with the bank situation... Maybe most folks are up to speed about it. Today was literally an eye opener for me. First time in a while that I was in a bank lobby. The name of the bank won't be mentioned, but it was a well-known bank. The thing that was striking was the emptiness of the place. Just two employees. This is a big building, and only two employees. Something's up, no doubt.

Dick Morris' piece today discussed the likely cause, which is higher interest rates. The higher interest rates were needed to slow down inflationary pressures, or so we are told. Banks can keep their money safe through the use of long bonds. If the interest rates go up, the book value of the bonds goes down. Consequently, the balance sheets of the banks suffer when rates go up. I've heard this before, so it might as well be mentioned. There's a lot of political spin going on, which seeks to avoid political accountability for what is coming. Batten down the hatches!

With the attitude of "letting no crisis going to waste", you can bet that there will be efforts to take advantage of the situation.

Rather than dwell on this dismal news, let's move on...

There was an email from Focus Fusion yesterday. They are going after more funding, but there may be a problem now. A wefunder campaign is coming too. Just in case you have a little money lying around to park in an investment. Not meant to be a joke, mind you.

Spacex is still getting ready for their Starship license to launch from Boca Chica. I try to check on this every day. Elon Musk isn't guaranteeing success, but he will guarantee excitement. If the thing blows up on the launch pad, there will be that. Might be an earth shattering kaboom. Marvin the Martian couldn't be reached for comment.

A thought just came into mind. With all this excitement and such. It was that scene in Animal House where Kevin Bacon screams "All is well!" before getting flattened by the mob.

We all want to be calm. Even while the house burns down around us. Don't panic. All is well.

Economic Leverage and the Wuhan-Virus Crisis

Seems appropriate today considering the news:

Re-posted from original:

Originally posted. April 2020:

The enormous amount of economic leverage, and the unwise dependence upon it made the current crisis inevitable.

Is it deliberate then? After all, these people have to know the power they are wielding, and how it can be used to attain more, or to deny it from those who wish to reform it.

If it isn't deliberate, then it is incompetence to an extreme. In any case, those who are attempting to LEVERAGE this health situation for political gain have some explaining to do.

I have a number of posts on the subject of economic leverage. Perhaps a reading of these could be worthwhile. 1) How much leverage? 2) Thoughts on Monetary Policy 3) My history with trading leverage 4) Is an economic collapse inevitable?

I regret not being better prepared for this "crisis". I am convinced I had the right idea, though.

Checking in, 3-15-23

The well is a bit dry, so pardon the rambling on that may occur on this post. There was a video on the Youtube, which had Billy Joel being asked why he hadn't done anything new in recent years. He answered with something along the line that he had said everything that he wanted to say. There have been a helluva lot of posts here. Everything that I could say has already been said at some point. It gets to the point that anything new is really old recycled stuff.

So here's some more recycled thoughts. Perhaps a new way of saying it, but the same old stuff...

Indeed, how is anything really original? There have been those who've said that there hasn't been anything original since the Greeks. Talking about recycling things...

Today's thought is this Matrix thing again. How do they do it? How do they get people to think the way they want us to? I'm referring to the powers-that-be. In this discussion, that is what is the "matrix".

If you were to bring up the indoctrination, people would just shrug it off. Or perhaps rationalize it away. The commies believe that people are given a "false consciousness". Give the commies one thing--they seem to understand the need for narrative control. There was something on the Robert Ringer blog about the dishonesty of politicians. You can say that there is this "false consciousness" running rampant in this culture. Ringer didn't say so, but what if there was a movement towards "truth conciousness"?

But there is a truth consciousness, provided that you follow the program. It is called the scientific method. You can bet that the scientific method is NOT being followed for the most part. People tend to believer what they want to believe.

I've written it recently, and it bears repeating. There IS a way to get as close to the truth as is humanly possible. If you want truth, that is.

The crux of the problem is desire. Do people really want truth? Because there is a way towards it. There is also a way away from it. Our society is not moving towards truth, but away from it.

Men are men, women are women. That's truth. Men having periods and having babies is not truth. You can talk all you want about social programming. But you cannot argue against chromosomes. Two x's make a female. An x and a y make a male. Anything else is less than truth. You can accept truth, or you can fight the truth. If you are fighting the truth, then the problem isn't the truth, it is how you deal with truth.

How do you deal with truth? Acceptance may help. You may not like the truth, but acceptance helps in coping with things you don't like. The alternative is fighting it.

It may well be true that human beings cannot accept truth, and so there will always be a fight. That too may need some acceptance. There may be this wish that all people can be happy all the time, but that's not the way things go, now is it?

I think the gobblely gook warning sensor went off. Enough for one day. There is always more on the horizon.

Free agency starts in NFL

This isn't going to be a mock draft type of post. Instead, I will focus on what I think the Houston Texans will do. The Texans have the 2nd pick in the draft, and the consensus is that they will select a QB. The QB is expected to be the franchise QB going forward.

Nothing happened today that will change this consensus. The Texans will sign Case Keenum, who is a veteran QB, and would be considered about an average NFL QB. He is over 30, and so he isn't going to be a long term solution, nor is he likely to carry the team as a franchise QB is expected to do. In other words, he is the bridge guy for the first year or two for the rookie QB they expect to take.

Which bring the discussion to who the Texans will take. They probably have their guy in mind, but he may not be there. The Panthers traded up, and are expected to take a QB with the first pick. I thought it over, and I think the Panthers would not have traded up and used up all those picks just to get an ordinary prospect. They would do this in order to get the top prospect in the draft. Of the QB's in this year's draft, the QB with the highest ceiling is Anthony Richardson. But he may not be ready to be the starter. He needs some polish, it is said.

If the Panthers don't take him, would the Texans? It would be an interesting scenario, should that be the case. My guess is that it won't be. It makes no sense to make the trade unless they believe the guy was special. The others may not have the upside that this guy has. This is why I think the Panthers will take him as the first pick in the draft. So the Texans won't get the opportunity, unless they trade up. I would consider that unlikely. If Richardson is available, then having Keenum in the fold will allow Richardson to develop without shattering his psyche, the way David Carr was when he was drafted first by the new expansion team in 2002.

The next two QB's may be pretty close to each other, so it may not matter that much as to who they take. Let's just say that it will be either Bryce Young or CJ Stroud. To tell the truth, I don't like Bryce Young's size, and so my preference is for Stroud.

Not much of a mock draft. To recap, it is Richardson, then Stroud. After that, I don't give a hoop. At least, not for the moment.

The Texans own the 12th pick, virtue of the Deshaun Watson deal. They're going to lose two edge guys to free agency, one is already gone. Most likely, they'll replace him with an edge guy. There is likely to be one available. Plus the got an edge guy today in free agency. The team's defense is getting set, so the offense will get the rest of the attention, I would think. A receiver may be taken with the 2nd round pick. Two third round picks may be spent on the offensive line.

Won't take it much further. Even though I am following this a lot closer than recent years, I am not really up on the NFL these days.

It may be interesting to review this when the draft takes place in late April.

Some links as food for thought

False flag and Parliamentary shenningans

Comment:

The above link describes how they needed a disruption on January 6th in order to keep the Supreme Court out of it.



Second link:

Why do the Jewish people vote for these people?

Comment:

In the second link, Mark Levin discusses the scandal that the media won't cover. It all makes me wonder why the Jewish people vote for the anti-Semitic left.

An alternate ending to Planet of the Apes (1968)

Scene in which it was revealed that they "blew it all up"

It may be a bit of a surprise. But old Chuck took it hard, all the same.