Back when I was a young whippersnapper, a friend of mine's dad said I should join the Corps of Cadets because it would "make a man out of you".
Well, that was then. I didn't join the Aggie Corp of Cadets back then. Should I have? Whatever the case, I didn't.
These days, girls are let into the Corps. Yep. The traditions are going by the wayside. We got a pajama boy culture now.
So, what do I think about my choices these days? I am a bit like my friend's Dad, or maybe even more so. Perhaps the younger generation needs Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann to tell the average Pyle character (we seem to be producing these days) this.
Some of those quotes are for the ages. What a character in a movie. What makes it so good is that it is so true.
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.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Matrix Reloaded 10.23.15 ( repost )
Updated,
4.2.19:
Red pill or blue pill? I consider this to be the red pilliest of the red pills. Russian collusion hoax is of the blue pill variety. You can swallow either one, and believe what you want to believe. Or we can see how far down into the rabbit hole we can go.
9.6.18:
This post has been reposted and updated several times. It is seemingly complex, but that is only because the target hasn't been fully acquired.
The most recent post about--- the media being foreign owned and/or influenced, is getting closer to ground zero.
Our politicians have sold out the country for money. The money is foreign owned and controlled. Why would they do this????
Does all this sound paranoid? It has been in the works since I was a kid ( or even sooner). It's globalism. New World Order. The Rockefellers. I heard that stuff when I was a kid.
The global has usurped the local. It is raising hell all over the world and is now raising hell with us.
This is the American Revolution all over again. We are literally fighting for our own independence.
Originally reposted on 5.14.17:
Note: This Russian business reminds me of this post, so I decided to repost it. You see, the Matrix is messaging us, telling us what to think about what is happening. But the truth of what is actually happening is being kept from us, just as in the movie. This is an artificial reality being imposed upon us. As for what's really happening, all I can do is guess. Since much of the real information is being kept from us, the only ones in the know are the ones doing the messaging. It is like the little man behind the screen in the Wizard of Oz, who is projecting a false image that is supposed to intimidate us into believing in him. Well, I choose not to. I am not buying into the bravo sierra out there.
The original post follows:
The thought amuses me. I can see Mr. Smith saying to Mr. Anderson: "Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me."
I've made the analogy before on this blog. Maybe we really are living in the Matrix. We are required to run on a treadmill in order to make money. The money is the "energy" that runs the Matrix machine. The Matrix machine generates for us a fantasy, a dream world, that is totally at odds with reality.
How do you unplug from the Matrix? It may be impossible. But there are those who have come pretty close. These people are called the Amish. Well, that's the impression I got from the movie Witness (1985).
What I'm getting at is that people would have to separate from the system somehow. In the movie, they gathered into a faith based community that gave up all of the modern day conveniences. There was a scene I remember where the community gathered together to build a barn in just one afternoon. What does this do? It is hard for me to see how the government can tax such an event. The Amish removed the need for money. Perhaps not the entire need, but much of it. An Amish person doesn't need to work at a job for money. They just run their farms and take care of each other.
That's what we lost when we "modernized". Instead of freedom, we got enslaved by the need to make money. The money is what runs the Matrix, and the Matrix controls us.
Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me! Indeed.
9:16:
Red pill or blue pill, decide now while you still can.
The red pill is for the reality of existence, the blue pill is for the fake existence the media and the political establishment has created for us in order to control us.
The choice is yours. I made mine a long time ago.
4.2.19:
Red pill or blue pill? I consider this to be the red pilliest of the red pills. Russian collusion hoax is of the blue pill variety. You can swallow either one, and believe what you want to believe. Or we can see how far down into the rabbit hole we can go.
9.6.18:
This post has been reposted and updated several times. It is seemingly complex, but that is only because the target hasn't been fully acquired.
The most recent post about--- the media being foreign owned and/or influenced, is getting closer to ground zero.
Our politicians have sold out the country for money. The money is foreign owned and controlled. Why would they do this????
Does all this sound paranoid? It has been in the works since I was a kid ( or even sooner). It's globalism. New World Order. The Rockefellers. I heard that stuff when I was a kid.
The global has usurped the local. It is raising hell all over the world and is now raising hell with us.
This is the American Revolution all over again. We are literally fighting for our own independence.
Originally reposted on 5.14.17:
Note: This Russian business reminds me of this post, so I decided to repost it. You see, the Matrix is messaging us, telling us what to think about what is happening. But the truth of what is actually happening is being kept from us, just as in the movie. This is an artificial reality being imposed upon us. As for what's really happening, all I can do is guess. Since much of the real information is being kept from us, the only ones in the know are the ones doing the messaging. It is like the little man behind the screen in the Wizard of Oz, who is projecting a false image that is supposed to intimidate us into believing in him. Well, I choose not to. I am not buying into the bravo sierra out there.
The original post follows:
The thought amuses me. I can see Mr. Smith saying to Mr. Anderson: "Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me."
I've made the analogy before on this blog. Maybe we really are living in the Matrix. We are required to run on a treadmill in order to make money. The money is the "energy" that runs the Matrix machine. The Matrix machine generates for us a fantasy, a dream world, that is totally at odds with reality.
How do you unplug from the Matrix? It may be impossible. But there are those who have come pretty close. These people are called the Amish. Well, that's the impression I got from the movie Witness (1985).
What I'm getting at is that people would have to separate from the system somehow. In the movie, they gathered into a faith based community that gave up all of the modern day conveniences. There was a scene I remember where the community gathered together to build a barn in just one afternoon. What does this do? It is hard for me to see how the government can tax such an event. The Amish removed the need for money. Perhaps not the entire need, but much of it. An Amish person doesn't need to work at a job for money. They just run their farms and take care of each other.
That's what we lost when we "modernized". Instead of freedom, we got enslaved by the need to make money. The money is what runs the Matrix, and the Matrix controls us.
Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me! Indeed.
9:16:
Red pill or blue pill, decide now while you still can.
The red pill is for the reality of existence, the blue pill is for the fake existence the media and the political establishment has created for us in order to control us.
The choice is yours. I made mine a long time ago.
Hoisted on their own petard?
A few tidbits to start the morning.
AOC has outdone herself this time. She says that the GOP forced FDR out of office with an amendment to the Constitution. Just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber. Reminds me of the joke that went like this: Question: how can you be so stupid? Ans. : Well, I got this fella helping me...
A second story has Joe Biden's spokesman saying that the metoo# movement is a bunch of liars. Hey, Joe! Who's the one who said that you gotta believe the women????
Unfortunately, people still vote for these buffoons. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse. Ohio may be joining the National Popular Vote Compact. They are going to have a referendum. Somehow, this does not reassure me very much.
AOC has outdone herself this time. She says that the GOP forced FDR out of office with an amendment to the Constitution. Just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber. Reminds me of the joke that went like this: Question: how can you be so stupid? Ans. : Well, I got this fella helping me...
A second story has Joe Biden's spokesman saying that the metoo# movement is a bunch of liars. Hey, Joe! Who's the one who said that you gotta believe the women????
Unfortunately, people still vote for these buffoons. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse. Ohio may be joining the National Popular Vote Compact. They are going to have a referendum. Somehow, this does not reassure me very much.
Monday, April 1, 2019
The Generations
This is a topic not discussed much here, if at all. It's a topic alluded to from time to time out there, but nothing much has been mentioned that grabbed my attention.
In a discussion about politics, it may be useful to study the ages of the populations as they move through time. Certainly, there was a lot of that when I was growing up. There was no doubt that I belonged to the baby boomer generation.
But that's where I got off. Maybe it would help in understanding politics if I got on the subject, and studied it more.
Do people in these age groups really act as a group? For definition purposes, the generations are listed as the Depression/War generation of my parents, their children ( which includes the baby boomers ), and the generations following them--- Gen X ( millenials ) , and Gen Y. There is also a Gen Z, but that would be the ones still growing up.
The brief amount of reading that I have done is likely to put one in a gloomy mood due to the increasing liberalism of the youngsters. True, a person's views get more conservative as they grow older. Or do they? The trend is toward more and more liberalism. That trend is not healthy.
But I heard how the country was "going to hell in a handbasket" when I was growing up. Well, maybe they were right! The more things change, the more they stay the same. It fits in with the theory that Western Civ is on the decline, and the liberalism shows how that is happening.
Of course that may get an argument, but even the younger generation isn't all that optimistic about their job prospects. Socialism and communism tended to thrive in countries that were experiencing economic stress. Too bad the kids don't seem to understand that their gloomy prospects play right into the hands of those who are responsible for them.
The younger generation doesn't like Trump, but Trump's policies are giving them more opportunities than the left was giving them. The younger generation seems to like Obama better, but Obama wasn't doing them any favors. In fact, the left's policies are punishing them, and they are rewarding their tormentors for it. Go figure.
In a discussion about politics, it may be useful to study the ages of the populations as they move through time. Certainly, there was a lot of that when I was growing up. There was no doubt that I belonged to the baby boomer generation.
But that's where I got off. Maybe it would help in understanding politics if I got on the subject, and studied it more.
Do people in these age groups really act as a group? For definition purposes, the generations are listed as the Depression/War generation of my parents, their children ( which includes the baby boomers ), and the generations following them--- Gen X ( millenials ) , and Gen Y. There is also a Gen Z, but that would be the ones still growing up.
The brief amount of reading that I have done is likely to put one in a gloomy mood due to the increasing liberalism of the youngsters. True, a person's views get more conservative as they grow older. Or do they? The trend is toward more and more liberalism. That trend is not healthy.
But I heard how the country was "going to hell in a handbasket" when I was growing up. Well, maybe they were right! The more things change, the more they stay the same. It fits in with the theory that Western Civ is on the decline, and the liberalism shows how that is happening.
Of course that may get an argument, but even the younger generation isn't all that optimistic about their job prospects. Socialism and communism tended to thrive in countries that were experiencing economic stress. Too bad the kids don't seem to understand that their gloomy prospects play right into the hands of those who are responsible for them.
The younger generation doesn't like Trump, but Trump's policies are giving them more opportunities than the left was giving them. The younger generation seems to like Obama better, but Obama wasn't doing them any favors. In fact, the left's policies are punishing them, and they are rewarding their tormentors for it. Go figure.
A flaw in the compact amongst the states to elect the POTUS via popular vote
Updated:
Originally posted 2.3.19:
4.1.19:
At the risk of beating this thing to death, I include a link to another viewpoint that favors the compact.
The link is at Townhall, which tends toward the conservative viewpoint. However, the article is flawed in its efficacy at argumentation.
She does not go into why it is not a compact between states. If it is a compact between states, it must be approved by Congress. She does not say why this compact is not a compact, and therefore is constitutional.
Her reasoning for favoring the compact is better explained in a link she provided. I read that article too, and I am not persuaded.
She claims that it will benefit the GOP, but I don't know about that. Has she looked at county wide election results? Almost all the big cities in my state of Texas went for Hillary in the last election. She bases her reasoning on what is happening in Florida, and extrapolates that nationwide. Overall, she has some questionable things to say about how many people live outside the cities.
She claims that opponents of the pact have their facts wrong, but I am not so sure about hers. Whatever the case, for or against, it is still a compact, and must be approved by Congress; otherwise it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Finally, I read through all the links. One of her arguments seems to be that those who oppose it haven't read the proposition. Interesting enough, she provides no link to the compact itself. How does anyone know what is in the compact anyway? There is nothing in the proposition that forces a state to adopt what she proposes. In order to make it legal, and uniform, the Congress must approve it.
3.31.19:
Here's another article about this movement. Why include it? What's new? Nothing in the article, I suppose. But here's another thought--- that Congress counts the Electoral Votes. Secondly, the Congress is not obligated to accept the Electoral Votes of any state, if there is any irregularity. Since the compact is not binding upon Congress, then why should Congress accept the votes that a state in the compact sends?
In other words, not all the dots are dotted, and not all the t's have been crossed. Before this can be legal, the Congress has to okay the Compact.
Anybody who loses in the Electoral College because of this Compact will have cause to challenge the outcome. When it gets to Congress, the Congress can overturn it even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
There is a long tradition that the Electoral College elects the President. However, procedures must be followed. This procedure is incomplete without Congressional approval. Congress must approve the pact, or it is non-binding. Relevant part of US Constitution--- Art I, Section 10, paragraph 3, to wit:
3.30.19:
Let's all get worried about this now. ( not ) Actually, I see Morris' point: a lot of squishes could join up with this. In that case, it is almost sure to create chaos. Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not enforceable.
3.29.19:
Delaware governor signs bill to join compact. Now up to 13 states, it says. Someone asks what happens if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?
That would be interesting. He wouldn't win by a large margin, but if you were to add 184 votes to his electoral margin, he would nearly have all of the electoral votes.
I cannot imagine these states keeping their agreement in such a case. The compact is unenforceable.
3.26.19:
Another state has joined this compact, or so I have read. Eventually, they may have enough states to rig the next election in favor of the Democrats.
However, fairly recently, there were as many as 31 GOP governors. Not to mention, nearly as many of the state legislatures were controlled by the GOP. If this releases the respective legislatures from any obligation to honor the vote in their own state, what prevents them from voting any way they choose, regardless of the popular vote? Why have the people vote at all?
In other words, this can backfire on the Democrats, as well not actually solving the problem that they claim they want to solve.
The compact isn't enforceable. There is no way to take this up in a court of law because the US Constitution forbids any compact between the states. If the states attempt to enforce it, the SCOTUS can slap it down.
But of course, the SCOTUS can slap down anything it wants. Rule of law? Democracy? What rule of law? What democracy?
This has the potential of making the 2000 election look orderly by comparison. Chaos could be around the corner.
2.3.19:
There is a threat to remove Trump from the ballot in New Jersey.
How can Trump or any GOP candidate have a chance to win the popular vote if millions of votes are denied to him? What's to prevent other states from refusing to allow a candidate to be on the ballot of their state, if that candidate is of an opposing party? In other words, they can cheat.
A national popular vote compact between the states won't resolve the issue that they claim to be interested in. It would only give them the opportunity to rig an outcome in their favor.
Originally posted 2.3.19:
4.1.19:
At the risk of beating this thing to death, I include a link to another viewpoint that favors the compact.
The link is at Townhall, which tends toward the conservative viewpoint. However, the article is flawed in its efficacy at argumentation.
She does not go into why it is not a compact between states. If it is a compact between states, it must be approved by Congress. She does not say why this compact is not a compact, and therefore is constitutional.
Her reasoning for favoring the compact is better explained in a link she provided. I read that article too, and I am not persuaded.
She claims that it will benefit the GOP, but I don't know about that. Has she looked at county wide election results? Almost all the big cities in my state of Texas went for Hillary in the last election. She bases her reasoning on what is happening in Florida, and extrapolates that nationwide. Overall, she has some questionable things to say about how many people live outside the cities.
She claims that opponents of the pact have their facts wrong, but I am not so sure about hers. Whatever the case, for or against, it is still a compact, and must be approved by Congress; otherwise it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Finally, I read through all the links. One of her arguments seems to be that those who oppose it haven't read the proposition. Interesting enough, she provides no link to the compact itself. How does anyone know what is in the compact anyway? There is nothing in the proposition that forces a state to adopt what she proposes. In order to make it legal, and uniform, the Congress must approve it.
3.31.19:
Here's another article about this movement. Why include it? What's new? Nothing in the article, I suppose. But here's another thought--- that Congress counts the Electoral Votes. Secondly, the Congress is not obligated to accept the Electoral Votes of any state, if there is any irregularity. Since the compact is not binding upon Congress, then why should Congress accept the votes that a state in the compact sends?
In other words, not all the dots are dotted, and not all the t's have been crossed. Before this can be legal, the Congress has to okay the Compact.
Anybody who loses in the Electoral College because of this Compact will have cause to challenge the outcome. When it gets to Congress, the Congress can overturn it even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
There is a long tradition that the Electoral College elects the President. However, procedures must be followed. This procedure is incomplete without Congressional approval. Congress must approve the pact, or it is non-binding. Relevant part of US Constitution--- Art I, Section 10, paragraph 3, to wit:
In short, neither the Congress, nor the Supreme Court has to be bound by what a few states may say about their electoral votes.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [ emphasis added ]
3.30.19:
Let's all get worried about this now. ( not ) Actually, I see Morris' point: a lot of squishes could join up with this. In that case, it is almost sure to create chaos. Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not enforceable.
Dick Morris: Electoral College in Jeopardy https://t.co/yr8puKcBwY— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 30, 2019
3.29.19:
Delaware governor signs bill to join compact. Now up to 13 states, it says. Someone asks what happens if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?
That would be interesting. He wouldn't win by a large margin, but if you were to add 184 votes to his electoral margin, he would nearly have all of the electoral votes.
I cannot imagine these states keeping their agreement in such a case. The compact is unenforceable.
3.26.19:
Another state has joined this compact, or so I have read. Eventually, they may have enough states to rig the next election in favor of the Democrats.
However, fairly recently, there were as many as 31 GOP governors. Not to mention, nearly as many of the state legislatures were controlled by the GOP. If this releases the respective legislatures from any obligation to honor the vote in their own state, what prevents them from voting any way they choose, regardless of the popular vote? Why have the people vote at all?
In other words, this can backfire on the Democrats, as well not actually solving the problem that they claim they want to solve.
The compact isn't enforceable. There is no way to take this up in a court of law because the US Constitution forbids any compact between the states. If the states attempt to enforce it, the SCOTUS can slap it down.
But of course, the SCOTUS can slap down anything it wants. Rule of law? Democracy? What rule of law? What democracy?
This has the potential of making the 2000 election look orderly by comparison. Chaos could be around the corner.
2.3.19:
There is a threat to remove Trump from the ballot in New Jersey.
How can Trump or any GOP candidate have a chance to win the popular vote if millions of votes are denied to him? What's to prevent other states from refusing to allow a candidate to be on the ballot of their state, if that candidate is of an opposing party? In other words, they can cheat.
A national popular vote compact between the states won't resolve the issue that they claim to be interested in. It would only give them the opportunity to rig an outcome in their favor.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Pew Science Quiz
You can take the test, if you think it will tell you much. It won't tell you much about yourself, but it may reveal a few things about the population who took the test. After all, that is why the test was created.
I read the comments, and one thing I noted was how many people reported acing the test. That leads to the question--- would those people have reported a poor score? Would you report a less than perfect score? Would you report a score that is the lowest of the reported scores?
As an exercise, I will leave those to guess what my score was. I'm not going to tell.
I read the comments, and one thing I noted was how many people reported acing the test. That leads to the question--- would those people have reported a poor score? Would you report a less than perfect score? Would you report a score that is the lowest of the reported scores?
As an exercise, I will leave those to guess what my score was. I'm not going to tell.
Fall of Western Civ
Comment:
Yep, another one of these.
Generally speaking, the fall of a civilization occurs when it no longer can exert itself. For example, the official fall of the Roman Empire is listed as the same time when the last emperor was deposed. If there is no emperor, there is no empire. If there is no empire, how can it exert itself? In the Empire, the sovereign authority was the emperor.
Another way of putting it is when a nation no longer has an identity. If there is no Roman emperor, then there is no Roman Empire.
In our own time, and in the United States, if there is no controlling legal authority, then there can be no United States. If there is no border, how can there be a country? If the laws are no longer enforceable, or are not enforced, how can there be a controlling legal authority?
When the political left attempts to go around the law, it is actually responsible for the downfall of the nation. You cannot have "rule of law" in a nation defined by rule of law, then dishonor that very law. The act of dishonoring the law upon which the nation is based is an act of national suicide.
The sovereign authority in the United States is the US Constitution. All officers of the United States must swear an oath to it. If that oath is disregarded, how can the nation continue?
Yep, another one of these.
Generally speaking, the fall of a civilization occurs when it no longer can exert itself. For example, the official fall of the Roman Empire is listed as the same time when the last emperor was deposed. If there is no emperor, there is no empire. If there is no empire, how can it exert itself? In the Empire, the sovereign authority was the emperor.
Another way of putting it is when a nation no longer has an identity. If there is no Roman emperor, then there is no Roman Empire.
In our own time, and in the United States, if there is no controlling legal authority, then there can be no United States. If there is no border, how can there be a country? If the laws are no longer enforceable, or are not enforced, how can there be a controlling legal authority?
When the political left attempts to go around the law, it is actually responsible for the downfall of the nation. You cannot have "rule of law" in a nation defined by rule of law, then dishonor that very law. The act of dishonoring the law upon which the nation is based is an act of national suicide.
The sovereign authority in the United States is the US Constitution. All officers of the United States must swear an oath to it. If that oath is disregarded, how can the nation continue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)