Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Return from beyond Texas - A Prelude to Civil War

Okay, I haven't posted anything in just over four years. Why? you might ask. Because opining in written form is hard work. Once committed to a document with any kind of permanence, critics and nitpickers crawl out of the woodwork with factual corrections. If any such essay survives this ghastly process, it is then put on trial by history, as predictions, no matter how beautifully surmised, are ruthlessly slaughtered by factors which seemed trivial when the prediction was written. Posting takes a huge emotional effort, and I haven't felt that need for it in years. And yet, here I am again.

In my prolonged vacation, I've been hospitalized in critical condition for something I insisted was trivial up until the last minute. Don't wanna talk about it. If you're curious, just assume it was an STD from straight sex. With a supermodel. I've also moved out of what was my adopted home state of Texas back to my disgruntled and snappish previous home state of Arizona. (Shh! We don't get along too well!)

If you're wondering about the title, God bless you!! But it's there for a reason. The president has made statements recently saying that as the Chief Executive, he has the authority, "the phone and the pen" to enact de facto law at his desk in the Oval Office. Senator Feinstein has stated that the First Amendment "was intended for educated Americans", not bloggers without a degree in political science or law, that they should expect jail time for speaking ill of the federal government, its employees, political appointees, or its elected officials. Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona has stated that only "gun control" can stop the types of violence such as the [insert latest mass shooting here]. In other words, the Constitution is under attack by members of the government. They are seeking to throw off the shackles of Constitutional restraint of their actions. Christians are increasingly in the federal crosshairs, as are family businesses, property owners, and gun owners. It is not beyond possibility that America could reach a boiling point leading to civil war. This isn't an original thought on my part. In fact, this post is a direct result of a Facebook post from Jay Rowell of today, May 28, 2014.

And so, having already bemoaned the prediction process and its ego murdering aftermath, I will nonetheless indulge in it anyway! Masochist me, huh? Based on my study of history (what little I have access to) it will go something like this:

  • 1. There will be a suspiciously successful general election which sees far more Democrats and RINOs elected and reelected than could possibly be accounted for in the polls.
  • 2. tensions will rise as more and more incidents involving the use of excessive force against Americans by federal agencies, such as the IRS, BATFE, BLM, TSA, and dozens of others begin to pile up bodies. But wars don't begin by stacking hay. Wars begin by a "last straw" breaking the back of reason and restraint.
  • 3. There will be a single act of war in which it can no longer be denied by any reasonable person that a state of war exists by dint of numerous attacks upon citizens due to their religion, race, means of employment, or political ideology.
  • 3.a. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if, in this "last straw event", many children were included on the casualty list.
  • 4. The immediate response by the federal government will be, "Proper procedures were followed, and an investigation will be conducted as soon as all the facts are in. And besides, the dead people brought it on themselves!"
  • 4.a. The federal government will "impose order" by severely limiting Bill of Amendment rights.
  • 5. This one horrible event will shock the nation into factionalizing. Pro-government? Or anti?
  • 5.a. Given the love Liberals have for government, and the outright hatred they so often display for Christians, conservatives, Libertarians, and, frankly, those of European ancestry, the Left, the Democrat Party, the Liberals, will become the "brown shirts". They will be armed and equipped, and eager to teach the "Rednecks" a lesson.
  • 5.b. The TEA party movement will be the focal point of the sedition side. Not the Republican Party. There are too many GOP officials who won't risk their power, prestige, and wealth in opposing even the most despotic of regimes. Even the most popular and consistently Conservative of Repubs will be too compromised by having been in politics to lead a rebellion.
  • 5.c. The states will be forced into a faction, some kicking and screaming, such as New Mexico and Colorado. The "blue states" will start making lists of "suspicious persons", those who own firearms, vote Repub, or have posted anti-Obama comments on Facebook. During one of the following points, those persons will be arrested without warrant and held without trial. Possibly executed.
  • 6. As Americans take to the streets to protest, the federal government forces will ruthlessly suppress it, leading to more deaths than the original 3.-event.
  • 7. In no particular order,
  • 7.a. the Federal government will announce a "curfew" and limitations on public speech and the press, with violators subject to deadly force; and
  • 7.b. a revolution movement will explode into existence organization and action. One will happen, and the other will follow.
  • 8. There will be
  • 8.a. a harsh response towards "agitators, aggressors, and seditionists" from the federal government. Not like an angry lecture. More like killing an entire town in the heart of the "Red States";
  • 8.b. followed by an angry response to the 8.a. "attack", a loss of federal agents lives in numbers unseen since...ever. At that point, it's war.

    Perhaps I'm off on some of these points. Perhaps way off. Perhaps totally wrong on all counts. In fact, I hope so. I hope reason and restraint prevail. I hope there is never an innocent victim of federal zeal, much less, God forbid, children! If all this comes off as I've outlined, it means tens of thousands dead in a matter of days. If there is not a decisive victory in short order, there will be millions of dead Americans on both sides. I have a wife and two children. I have a mother I would defend to the death. Oh, I have friends I would be honored to fight alongside, but they also have spouses and children. No civil war is ever a victory. Sometimes the just and righteous prevail, sometimes not. And sometimes, despite the outcome, tyranny creeps in and takes over.

    It makes no difference to the dead, or their families, or their loved ones, who is to blame.

  • Tuesday, May 11, 2010

    Evil Relies on the Silence of the Good...and Usually Gets it

    Perhaps it is a bit strong to refer to those who state their passionate opinion as evil, but then again, perhaps not. The opinion to which i refer is the charge that Teaparty members are "racist". This sounds merely quirky and lame at first blush, but after some reflection i have Humbly come to realize how vile this lie truly is. These false accusations cause innocent people to suffer.

    It is disgusting how those who merely state their opposition to the current status quo are branded as racist, and even terrorists. Some of the members of the Teaparty movement are people of color. These allegations of racism against the general membership of the Teaparty movement end up causing shouts of "race traitor" to those members who are minorities.

    In these unsettled times, fear is used as a political tool to herd the masses into the confined pens which the entrenched leadership control. The Patriot Act is a good example of this. "I will keep you safe if you allow me some little extra power until the danger is past," was the promise. Only, there is never any safety, so the little extra power ends up being permanent, and growing, too. And so, in these unsettled times, referring to any grassroots movement by such frightening terms as "racist", "terrorist", "militia movement", and "gun loving" is an OBVIOUS ploy to utilize fear--no! TERROR--to minimize and demonize that movement!

    Doubt me? After the attempted Times Square car bombing, were there not theories flying around that it was a "white male in his forties", and "probably a right wing extremist" going around? Remember the guy who suicide-crashed his plane into a government building a few months ago? He was referred to as a "right wing extremist" even after his web site was exposed as really Marxist in nature.

    Wake up! Use of fear--that is, terror--to accomplish political ends is TERRORISM! Those who tell their lies about the Teaparty movement are either part of a concerted effort to control our very society, or are dupes who believe whatever they hear from their beloved leadership with no effort to think critically. The Teaparty movement is racist??? HOW??? And think before you answer this question. Apply the same standards of "racism" to those you choose to follow.

    There is a civil war IN PROGRESS in this country right this minute. It is being fought in the media. It is being waged in the Congress. Celebrities are virtual WMDs. Little people, like me, have almost no ability to make the slightest difference in the outcome. And when this civil war is over, the real bloodshed will begin.

    Dear Lord, i hope i'm wrong.

    Sunday, March 14, 2010

    Fatal Flaws Require Rethinking, Not Better PR

    We bought a car once that we couldn't afford. It cost too much. We figured eventually we'd work it out. Never did. The bank took the car back. It was a bad idea. Fundamentally flawed. In its current form, so is Health Care Reform. Not just flawed. FATALLY flawed. Jumping into it anyway will cause ruin, chaos, devastation, and anguish. Just like that minivan did for my family.

    The sentiment seems to be that, regardless of how flawed the Health Care Reform bill may be, it is crucial to pass it now, presumably because people are dying because of the flaws of the current system. My sentiment is horror. This was the same general mindset of the people of Germany in the early 1930s. They sold their humanity to the first one who promised a solution. Sorry, that's a bit extreme, but emotional arguments bring that out in me. A slightly less extreme example is our longtime friend, England, whose NHS is currently killing people because of the flaws in their healthcare system. Based on the news from across the pond, this is a constant occurrence. Emotional thinking, wishful thinking, unrealistic thinking, result in bad BAD ideas being tried, resulting in disasters, regardless of how saintly the intentions were.

    I once painted a garage floor. I spent more time picking out the color than the right type of paint. After three weeks, the paint was still "tacky" wet. Yeah, I'm that kind of genius. I ended up moving out and leaving the landlord to deal with it. (I'm not proud of that!) This Health Care Reform bill will do the same thing to the American people as I did to my landlord. Not only will more harm than good result, the next few years will be spend undoing the damage, at massive cost to the American people.

    There are a few flaws which must be considered as severe enough to kill the current form of Health Care Reform, if they exist. There can be no excuses, no plans to work it out later. If there is a fatal flaw, drop it, and redo it from the ground up.

    First, Constitutional flaws. The Legislative branch derives its authority from the Constitution, and even take an oath to defend it. All actions taken by all branches of government, and all employees and agents, must adhere to the Constitution. No excuses. MUST.

    Second, legal flaws. This hasn't been a big deal to Congress of either party in recent years, but it needs to be considered when the very weight of the act being considered can have catastrophic consequences. When the bill being considered is whether the Honorable Joseph T. Blow should be on a stamp, it is safe to skip this consideration. Already, there is a massive concern over whether this bill is in violation of the Hyde Amendment, forbidding the Federal Government to pay for abortions. Creating new law which violates old law is insane. Repeal the old law first, or fix the new law. Doing neither invites disaster.

    Third, practical impossibility. If Health Care Reform will cost, as I suspect, several trillion dollars over the next decade, during a period of existing financial instability, the result can be unthinkable. US bankruptcy. Not even during the Great Depression did we face this prospect. We are seeing it in Greece now. We may face it this decade if Health Care Reform passes. More of the States may face bankruptcy. More local governments. Who is going to pay for millions more people's health care?? My wife and I decided we would cut spending on a few things to pay for that minivan. Perhaps we should have cut spending first, then bought a car. There is actually an existing law which states new programs must be funded before being implemented. Is it too much to ask for lawmakers to obey that law?

    Fourth, social impact. Not quite what it sounds like. Cramming a law down the throats of people who don't want it, at best, is a step towards tyranny. Bad precedent. VERY bad. Eventually, there will be an election, people will get a chance to demonstrate their anger, but only after the damage is done. So, maybe there is a change in the majority party. Sounds good, right? Remember, this is after the precedent of passing a massive bill against the unanimous dissent of the minority party, and even the majority of the American people. The new majority party will now have fresh bitter memories and new superpowers to ram through unpopular destructive legislation. The term "nuclear option" will come to be business as usual.

    Fifth, disenfranchisement. This flaw is really more of an effect. Passing a law that 60% of the people hate is saying, "You're little people. You're a nobody." What good could possibly come from that?

    The Health Care Reform bill has been pushed from the beginning with secrecy and guile. The "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" provisions are just the ones we know about. They were "gifts" to balky senators who would otherwise have voted no. So was the Stupak amendment, but he's going to get shafted out of that. My point is, Congress shouldn't have to give gifts to get a law passed. Not if it is good. Certainly not gifts that the American people are paying for. It's beyond sleazy.

    Maybe it all doesn't matter anyway. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has enough votes to pass it now. She's not worried. It's a little odd that she passed the House version in the middle of the night on a Saturday, within minutes of knowing she had the votes to do it, but she is holding off on voting the Senate version, even though she says she has the numbers. Could she be less than honest? Schedule the vote, Speaker! Commit to your folly. Pass it and live with the consequences.

    I don't know whether to dread the flood, or look forward to the cleanup which will follow.

    Monday, January 18, 2010

    You Have no Right to Live, Sicko, Revisited!

    In a previous blog, i stated my Humble concerns about a Reformed Health Care system which penalizes those who are particularly in need of medical support, the smokers and the overweight. Since then, i've seen the penalties decline to a less draconian level. This greatly reassures me. Until i think about it again. ANY penalty on any aspect of lifestyle MUST be viewed as an insertion of control over YOUR life by a despotic regime! It is an attempt at control, social engineering, and tyrannical.

    Please note i Humbly limited the scope of my accusation of tyranny to penalizing and controlling lifestyle. There are valid areas wherein a benevolent government must assert and maintain control. Commission of a violent crime may be viewed as a "lifestyle choice", but then, so too could being a citizen at all. Assault, as an example, is part of some cultures, sometimes to extremes. Yet, assault is a crime. Being fat isn't. Smoking isn't. Creation of anti-Constitutional civil law to penalize these where criminal law does not, is frankly evil.

    There are well-meaning busybodies who wish to say that we have no inherent right to be fat or smoke. Well, actually, yeah, we do. The 9th and 10th Amendments say we have all rights not reserved by the Constitution to the Federal or state governments. We have the right to engage is all kinds of stupidity. We have the right to vote without the slightest understanding of the issues, or candidate's position on them. That, i Humbly assert, is more of a danger and detriment to the American people than a chubbo with a Marlboro.

    As for "Health Care Reform", i Humbly expect only bad things from it. Politicians are creating it. They are a bunch of fatuous egotistic morons (with a few exceptions). Those in office who have medical experience are being ignored in favor of jackasses like Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer. We are allowing them to strip away, first, less popular rights in exchange for a hypothetical improvement in health care. After those rights are taken away, NEVER to be restored, we will find out, "Oops, we underestimated the cost of insuring those 36 million people Health Care Reform is covering! We're going to have to start cutting costs somehow." It won't be just the obese and smokers (other than those in office) who will find hard times in getting medical care.

    It will be everyone.

    Saturday, December 12, 2009

    Avatar: Why Make an Effort When the Effects are Hot?

    I haven't seen the movie at this time, only the reviews. I do plan to see the movie, though. Still, what struck me the most from the review i read last (Associated Press), was the extremely easy-to-hate portrayal of the antagonists in this epic film. How easy it is to hate warmongers and nature rapers. The bad guys are both groups combined.

    Apparently, there are natural resources located, of course, directly under the village of the nature-revering natives, and they must be taken even if it means the violation and destruction of paradise. Is there any ambiguity? Is there any reason to not hate the bad guys? Perhaps after seeing the movie, i'll change my opinion. Hollywood does, on occassion, surprise me.

    In the real universe, people are a complex mix of good and evil. Human nature (and nature nature) is inherently selfish. Survival means never being sorry about who or what you eat. Survival means the weak get shafted, and the strong get the girls. It means killing rivals, and doing atrocious things to prevent problems in the future. Consider the lion. What the new male of the pride does to establish his leadership is heinous and horrible. But that's nature. Humans are (debatably) the only animals on this planet who make an effort to rise above their nature. (Although I've heard stories about dogs, cats, and dolphins that make me wonder.) The point is, any real examination of the motivations and mindset of most people will reveal some sympathetic traits, and some contemptible traits. Because goodness and evil coexist within us, individuals are rarely just one or the other. My favorite movies are those where the villains are the most lovable, the most appealing.

    I don't know, having never written a screenplay, how hard it is, or if it would have been much harder to make the humans as sympathetic as the aliens they are in conflict with. So, i offer only my Humble opinion: we've been set up.

    I've never wiped out a nature-loving village or defiled a natural paradise for scarce resources in my life, and have no desire to ever do so. But i get the feeling there's gonna be a line in this movie, or perhaps merely implied:

    You humans are all alike.

    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    Free Choice Doesn't Mean Your Choices are Free

    Forgive me, readers, it has been two months since my last confession--er--blog. That last one was about the so-called Health Care Reform Act, and so is this one. Abortion proponents want a federal law requiring that insurance cover abortion. Senator Boxer considers this debate to be anti-woman, an assault on women's rights which could take women back to the 70's.

    Seems like a simple issue to me, in my Humble opinion. Abortion is not being limited at all under this or any federal legislation. What is being debated is, who covers the cost? Boxer demands that all insurance carriers cover abortion, or there is no longer "freedom of choice".

    I am aghast. This anti-logic comes from one of the Committee of One Hundred, some of the most powerful people on the planet. This is like when one of my two young children comes up to me and asks if they can have something, and I tell them yes, they then expect me to jump in the car, go to the store, buy it, sometimes assemble and test it, and hand it to them. Is that what the leadership of this nation have become? Five year-olds? If would be funny if the potential cost to my sons weren't so potentially catastrophic.

    And yet, as a conservative, I'm almost tempted to concede this foolishness! Let 'em have all the abortions they want! Who are the fetuses being aborted most likely to become had they gone to term? Liberals? Most of those fetuses would have had a liberal mommy. Not all, true, but most. Abortion is a choice, but so is pregnancy, yet I have no qualms about demanding insurance cover ob/gyn, L&D, neonatal, pediatrician, and so on. My Humble opinion is that these things are actually good for our country. The practice of killing unwanted infants is not. Abortion diminishes the value of human life.

    I would be willing to compromise this supremely moral issue to this extent: abortions covered as a result of the Health Care Reform Act would mandate reversible sterilization be performed at the time or shortly thereafter. The cost of reversing that procedure, however, would not be covered. Freedom of choice doesn't necessarily have to mean all the choices are yummy.

    Ask my five year old.

    Saturday, October 17, 2009

    You Have no Right to Live, Sicko!

    In an article in the Washington Post, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole" there is a dire threat. Live by Our standards, or else. The health care "reform" package under consideration would allow employers to increase employee premiums by 50%. That's around $200 per month for a single person, $500 per month for a family. That is a HUGE penalty for being fat!!

    Some fraction of those being penalized will drop their insurance, which may be in violation of the new law, resulting in a HUGE penalty for being fat.

    Failing to be insured may also result in refusal of care, shortening the lives, productivity, comfort, and contribution to society by the despicable smokers, fatties, and poor lifestylers. "I shouldn't have to pay for porkers' health care!" people will scream. Some already do. "If you smoke, you deserve to die!" some cry. "I don't want gang members/gays/punks/alternative lifestylers/goths (or whatever group with some hypothetical health issue) taking up MY healthcare resources!"

    People can come up with good reasons to hate the overweight, the smokers, and the other with health issues. Drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers will be given a bandaid and shown to the door at emergency rooms. There will be no compassion. It was a choice YOU made to be unhealthy! Only the wealthy will be able to get care. Poverty, likewise, is a lifestyle choice.

    And then there's the issue of religious influence on health care. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, wisely or not, that the Biblical injunction against taking blood doesn't mean only drinking it, but accepting transfusions as well. This can be argued to mean they are at greater risk, require specialized (i.e., more expensive) treatment, and are more likely to die anyway, so why waste public health care resources on them? "Let 'em pray for health!" There are those who believe God can literally heal them when He chooses to. They are already under attack in the courts. I don't know who's right. Maybe they should be imprisoned for letting children die. Maybe they should be free. Maybe the state should take away their children for their protection. Maybe there should be some marriage license "do you believe in using doctors and hospitals" test to allow marriage. There's no easy answer here, other than perhaps the Reader's opinion. Are You a "Jail 'em!" or "Free 'em!" type?

    This scares the crap out of me. I'm obese. And I, contrary to the supercilious opinion of 200 million non-obese people, can't stop being obese tomorrow! If I made a sincere effort with reasonable support (nutritional guidance, physical trainers, medical advice) I might be able to get off the obese list in a year. More likely two. But as the Washington Post article points out, there won't be any support. Health care will be reserved for the healthy. And as soon as an argument can be made that any particular health condition can be blamed on lifestyle, you'll be targeted too. Or perhaps just a family member, loved one, or friend.

    What will you do when your mother tells you she's been denied medicare because she's "too active, and at risk for injury"? Say your goodbyes? Council her to stay home and be silent? Go through nursing home brochures for your entirely healthy mother, effectively ending her life because of a lifestyle choice? How about when you receive a "believed to be currently using tobacco products" letter, with an invitation to pee in a cup? Don't believe in "false positives"? "These tests are reliable, smoker! Get ready for a big cut in your pay!" Thinking you can sue? Yeah, see how that works for ya.

    I know I'm obese. I know I need to change that, and I will, in my own time and my own way, with the best expert advice I can find, and without forcing my wife and children to make sacrifices, too. If this healthcare "reform" travesty passes, the right to make those decisions will be taken away from me, or I and my family will be penalized into submission.

    It is extremely troubling when the government can dictate personal, private, and lawful behavior, and that day is coming when a bunch of misguided ivory tower politicians who won't be subjected to their own stupidity take over that ubiquitous industry, health care, and run roughshod over our rights. Think you won't be affected? If so, I Humbly think you're a fool.

    My prediction is, people will be suiciding to spare their families. We'll read horror stories about the grandpa who was kicked out of the hospital after being caught smoking, and died soon after. We'll read about women who decided to abort rather than quit smoking cold turkey. The health, finances, families, and very lives of American citizens will be held hostage to the benevolent despots of the healthcare industry. And some politicians will hand them the power of life and death.

    They're lining up the votes in D.C. right now.