Trump was a phenomenon in politics and in our history. It seems Prudent to recognize that the greatest good he could possibly do… has already been done. Not everyone who gains center stage will be a King, someday. Some will merely be President of the United States, and then retire.
Aside from his extraordinary rise to the presidency, the most extraordinary aspect of Trump’s political chapter in his own life and in ours, was the unprecedented attacks he drew from the corrupt “leaders” who burrow into Washington and try never to leave. Self-service is nearly the only service that City knows… or recognizes. It stains and erodes everything, there.
In what can fairly be described as a sacrificial role, Trump exposed the nature and breadth of the rot we call the administrative state. He took the slings and arrows for all of us who supported him, and for those who didn’t, in fact. Like a lightning rod on a fragile, wooden barn, we are glad – thankful – that Trump was there during the storms. Yet we recognize that we should not get too close when the next storm threatens, for he also draws the lightning bolts that could injure us as well as him. It’s a real dichotomy, and grossly unfair.
Comfortably blind Democrats and leftists who may still pledge allegiance to this amazing nation, are certainly blind to the sacrifice Trump made to even run for president, and to accept the burden of election. His fortune shrank and he relinquished control of businesses that bear his name. We need not cry for him, but America owes him an historic debt of gratitude: he may have saved the Republic. Unlike most in Congress and in the 1200, or so, agencies, departments, offices and programs, The Donald did not go to Washington to become rich by hook or crook.
Like nearly every true leader, Trump has human flaws and among them are an outsized impression of his irreplaceability. He is vain and narcissistic and hates to not be the center of attention. Prudence does not envy him his retirement. Those flaws are damaging his legacy, now, and damaging the nation he deeply loves and served. To a great extent, his anger over a very questionable 2020 election hurt Republicans’ ability to win the Senate in 2020, and it is poised to hurt the same opportunity, again.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s need to be the center of attention and authority keeps him from playing on a team – only if it’s HIS team. For this reason, Prudence recommends that Mr. Trump actually retire from seeking office. He is a huge influencer, and that power can be put to good work to keep politics and leadership fighting for “America First.”
There is a very painful effect for someone in Trump’s position, to stop pushing to get revenge on political enemies who have lied and conspired to tear him down. Other Republicans will do well to sit down with him to map out how they will eventually bring down those who have broken numerous laws in their false accusations and fraudulent uses of federal power. It can take the “Trump Wars” off of the front pages and let local political battles be won by other conservatives. There are better, more unifying candidates for President, as hard as that is for Trump to accept.
So, Trump can be an heroic figure in history… or, he can be seen as a vindictive man who faded from importance, squabbling and lashing out at those who, genuinely, distorted the truth – even committed blatant, illegal fraud – to hurt him, personally and the country as a whole. Prudence recommends heroism.
As for other Republicans, honesty, morality and dedicated “America First” policies are the pathways to power and American restoration. We must re-frame the abortion issue with truth and pro-American views. The pre-born are Americans. It is time to make “pro-choice” the free choice to have sex, not to kill the baby. Our long-term success as a nation requires guaranteeing the rights enumerated in our constitution, including LIFE. We must restore the meaning of words and biological truth at the same time. Republicans must stand for life and define the pro-death attitudes of the left, for they include the death of the United States of America.
Republicans must stand for honesty, integrity and honor in education, including reasonable limits on the power of education unions. Among those must be political actions or donations on behalf of any officials able to affect or effect financial advantage for union members. The same should be true for all public employee unions.
No laws should be signed into effect if they are based on self-declared feelings, absent empirical evidence. Smart Republicans can create anti-discrimination protections for everyone that are not based on feelings, but on actions against the person of any American.
Criminal penalties must not be affected or distorted based on race or gender or gender-identity, only on the severity of the criminal acts, themselves. Citizens understand the difference between honest and equal application of the laws, and political favoritism that distorts public safety. Republicans must be clearly identified with public safety, and making clear the distinction between real safety and faux enforcement distorted by the left.
American foreign policy needs clarity and unquestioned pro-American patriotism. We must strengthen our alliances with British commonwealth countries and a handful of others who share our philosophies and anti-communism. At the same time we must be clear in our own anti-communism. Our military behemoth needs strict reform and reallocation of resources. There is too much General staff and not enough troops or hardware, or training. The next president must be especially tough with the 6 branches, making them lean and effective. All vestiges of “wokeism” and “social justice” must be weeded out of the academies and the ranks, right up to General staff level. Only then will foreign policy mean very much and will diplomacy achieve very much.
Fiscally, the federal budget must be cut, including welfare of every sort. The debt ceiling should be reduced every year until we are in balance, no exceptions. Every Department and agency should have its budget and cost / performance rating reviewed separately: no more “omnibus” budget bills and no more continuing resolutions. If ANY politician truly desired to reduce the federal budget / “money disposer,” he or she could put some brains together to create a campaign to sell the idea to Americans. We are doomed if no one does.
There is a reason America became great. The ideas that made it possible are so old they are new again. However, it will take a disciplined political force to make them attractive to Americans, themselves. Given the crass, petty squandering of political opportunity so sadly displayed in 2022, another party is needed, it seems Prudent to say.
There are many forms of conspiracy of which average citizens have some inkling or suspicion, despite, or perhaps because of the concerted mendacity of government officials and agencies, including our military bureaucrats. Particularly since the Biden administration took control, world politics and military relationships have become more dangerous, more conspiratorial and far more difficult to control, let alone understand. Naturally, Americans are much more nervous and feeling isolated, as we probably should. With China encroaching on our spheres of influence and on numerous allies like Canada, Columbia, Panama, African nations and Europe, itself… even Hungary, the “world” seems to be ganging up on the U. S.
This is a rather abrupt turn of events. One has to wonder if it’s all a matter of incompetence and lack of understanding, or if key power centers in the U. S. are executing a plan. Can these questions be answered?
Was Covid-19 a strategy or unfortunate accident?
Is the widespread “legalization” of very dangerous marijuana and the onslaught of lethal drugs flooding our neighborhoods, just wretched capitalism or an element of intentional weakness that makes sense to some people?
Is the attack on Ukraine part of an “approved” plan by globalists to weaken NATO and the U. S.?
Is the “attack” on oil and gas in the U. S. part of the same plan?
Where did the basic plan to expand “transgenderism” among grade-schoolers originate?
How is it that major hospitals suddenly coordinated with the LGBTQ+ agenda and public schools to begin performing transgender mutilations and sterilizations?
Is the pressure to give virtually everyone from age 5 and up the modified RNA injections part of a larger objective of weakening individual freedom, lower general health and possibly population control?
Who, or what country(ies), actually benefits from the dramatic changes in U. S. monetary and immigration policies?
Who, or what country(ies), benefits from election fraud?
Who, or what country(ies), benefits from soft-on-crime policies in major cities?
Who, or what country(ies), benefits from high inflation in the U. S.?
Who, or what country(ies), benefits from restricting food production – reducing fertilizer use and sequestering productive acreage?
These are all rather sad questions to be able to posit. How could so many negative policies suddenly descend upon our nation and people? Can they all be parts of tragic, unavoidable coincidences? Or, could they be coordinated from… well, somewhere? Someone? Some group?
Can we put much credence into the idea that Joe Biden, a man whose mental state requires guides and “handlers” at all times, actually believes in what he says or does, or that he thought up the set of policies he has put into action?
Or, God forbid, but not an impossibility, is it possible that leftists/globalists in the United States’ “deep state” have considered the evolving relationships and power of Red China, the problems and responsibilities of American freedom and nationalism and the blandishments of the World Economic Forum in terms of a financial control model of vastly smaller populations, and decided that the only answer to the possibilities of wars and nuclear conflict is to throw in with the W.E.F. and establish a global government able to negotiate with, and even coerce China into coexistence? Perhaps systemic treason has been sold to the oligarchy as salvation.
Politics is more than pointing out the lies of others, Prudence indicates. So too is how people and societies organize themselves and their governing structures and technology. Even more, so too is religion and ideologies of various kinds: much, much more than pointing out the lies of others. There are larger pictures to take in and analyze and critique. After all, do artists lie? Are they, then, no longer artists?
Life is art… or at least the creation of an artist – an artist who tries to teach his/her subjects how to expand and beautify the painting in which they reside, on ever better canvas and frame, and in brighter, truer colors. Life is the basis of the greatest artist’s greatest work. Eventually life takes us to the edge of the canvas and what we call death results, but death is not the basis or the subject or the purpose of the painting. Death dealt for selfish, craven reasons before the edge of the canvas is reached, destroys not only a bit of life but the integrity of the painting. It’s source and perpetrator must be expunged, cleansed from the art that is life, for it/he/she has no place here.
Details of the art of life can be studied and understood a little better, and a little better, and a little better, still. Important to the beauty of the multi-billion points of life that comprise the fulgent artwork of life on Earth, is freedom to act in concert with the artist’s intent. Were there no options, no imagination, no whimsy, no beautiful choices, then the painting would be dull in color and harmony, smaller and devoid of love, the one color that is always the hardest to mix or apply, and the most vivid.
Holding the whole creation together is the love of life. Here and there, created in love but, somehow, twisted to love death, itself, bits of life, humans, develop the love of death and the “art” of dealing death. They claim to abhor terrible, brutal, violent death, yet do nothing within public policy to put a stop to it. On the other hand, the same people use public policy to accelerate hidden, “life-saving” death, like abortion and vaccination. That’s where the art of death exists, first from euphemism and then, only in unseen places, by terrible, brutal violent death. In either case, the very presence of death-lovers amidst the beautiful artwork of life causes the artist’s paint to bead up, unable to blend or enrich the near-perfect painting alluded to; it leaves blank, colorless blemishes.
Freedom, or the absence of freedom, is like that: devoid of color, particularly vibrant colors of creativity, joy and charity. Humans are designed for and have evolved to flourish in an environment of freedom – we’re “tuned” to what we consider to be beautiful and harmonious – and there are “rules” for being free. Without the rules, which are not limitations, in application, but better described as guidance, humans can easily slip into license and corruption, both mental and physical. Where this tendency has begun to concentrate we can see that the inherent beauty of human evolution has been dulled, and created still more areas where the artist’s paint has beaded up, failing to mix and blend and enrich the entire picture. We have names for these “rule-breakings.”
The first name describes corruption of the heart; we call it hatred. It has many manifestations, but all of them must be taught, it turns out. Every cultural tradition seems to include an identification of the “first hater,” which is the same as saying the “first liar.” Lying to other humans is an act of hatred: hatred of the inherent beauty of another human. It declares that the hater who is doing the lying has no respect for the value and integrity of another person… or even of a country full of other persons. Hatred is very easy to spread around when haters don’t even realize they are hating others, and when they may not even realize they’re telling lies!
So, the simplest form of heart-corruption is lying, but it’s not always a matter of lying to others: humans can be led to lie to themselves. That’s an environment wherein there is neither much debate nor alternatives based in pure truth. A small initial lie, like “this drug will make you happier,” can lead an inherently beautiful human to tell him- or her-self that he or she is not worthy of the beauty that others still enjoy. Nothing good flows from that belief. Even worse, rather than trying to convince such “lost” people of their inherent beauty, political forces try to make reinforcement of the new self-lie much easier. It’s called respecting “civil rights” but it is an ugly perversion of the beauty of human life. It also seems to be contagious, tending to infect younger and younger, beautiful humans.
At some point, societies develop a means of “enforcing” the rules of freedom so that the greater “good:” the maximum number of humans being able to survive, grow, create and have successful families and children, is assured. Except for those whose freedom is stripped from them for varying degrees of failing to follow the rules of freedom, the enforcement paradigm works fairly well until a fresh lie is introduced: enforcement “hurts” too many people. The political/police enforcers are quickly led to still another form of hatred-lie: “hurting so many of our fellow humans is not who we are as a people” and that ending a lot of enforcements is the “right” thing to do.
Now the artist’s beautiful painting becomes even more dull and hard to look at by humans who are still mostly beautiful… and hard to understand, as well.
Soon, because political power and re-election trumps everything, confused humans are led to hate those who refer to rules of freedom as being anti-freedom: the worst of all sins. The defense of “freedom” for those who are already in the business of lying, readily morphs into the defense of licentiousness, at which point every person or institution who defends adherence to the “rules” for freedom, is identified as an enemy of “freedom” or of “democracy,” neither of which is defined. The evil intent of anyone opposed to them, however, must be virulently opposed.
We can Prudently see, now, that hatred is more than the first name of rule-breaking: it’s the only name of rule-breaking. It manifests as lying, and therein lies the complexity of hatred: the myriad kinds and styles of lies that are told to us and by us. The struggles between truth and lies describe most of human history. Prudence thinks humans have become LESS truthful over the centuries that have led us to today. Certainly this is true for the United States. Can we keep excusing lies from various groups, agencies and institutions simply because the liars believe what they are saying?
The great painting called “Life” is still beautiful, but becoming less so at a frightening rate. The single metric of suicides teaches us that increasing numbers of humans no longer perceive any beauty in living. The great lie of abortion has blazed the trail… no – blazed the 8-lane expressway toward death as a “solution” to the problems of life. Great, ugly swaths of the painting have beaded-up, unblended colors that look muddy rather than vivid, because of abortion. Will truth ever overwhelm the hopelessness of abortion?
Nearly as much of a blemish on the painting called “Life” are the compound lies of transgenderism. Here, the merchants of Death convince very young people to commit “suicide of the self,” even as they convince their parents that those same merchants are “educators,” preparing their children to be successful citizens of the United States of America. Each child was born to be a certain person, a certain soul, and to conquer the challenges for that person, male or female. Instead they are coached to either become sex objects at grade-school ages, or to “kill” their selves by undoing their sexual being with a grand pretense that it is possible to believe two diametric ideas simultaneously. It is a means to living a lie, also destroying reproductive viability. As it has spread through education in many states and countries, the painting has become duller, with sharp edges between vibrancy and death and dullness.
The elements of vibrant, vivid paint, including the color of love and not of death or hatred, still exist, and there are yet a few million of the artist’s apprentices still active and available. We who are given the opportunity to co-create our painting – which represents a lot of faith on the part of the artist – often lose sight of the harmony and natural beauty that we have taken for granted. For a hundred reasons we insist on trying to blend ugly, dull colors, believing that our odd intentions will render a better beauty than that created for us by the artist. Yet our ugly paints keep beading up and leaving growing patches of ugly dullness amidst the original beauty.
Still, we push on, insisting that we know better than the artist of our life painting. As the blemishes expand, those stuck in the ugliness try to blame the co-creators of beauty for the contrast, as though reducing the overall quantity of beauty and harmony would make everyone feel accepted and grant equity to all. To their dismay, however, the rules of freedom don’t allow for it and, to the purveyors-of-ugliness’ horror, those are the rules of beauty, as well.
The Green New Deal has become a means of theft: elites taking freedom and independence, and possibly life, itself, away from the middle and lower classes. “Oh! No!” you say, “Surely you are misinterpreting the existential threat of climate change and their intense efforts to save the planet.” Well, no, actually I’m trying to balance reality with what we’re being told.
Many hundreds of statements and declarations are made on a weekly, monthly, annual basis – certainly on every hot day, cold day, dry day or wet day, that “climate change” is wreaking havoc on the planet and on the poor and downtrodden, minorities and LGBTQ+ “communities” worst of all. It’s all the fault of you smug suburbanites and your SUVs spewing that awful carbon dioxide… and the cow farts you cause by eating burgers made from meat and not insects. Don’t forget your air conditioners and outdoor grills – all hastening our extinction.
This would be such a nice planet to live on if it weren’t for all you… well… people for goodness’ sakes. (Can’t say ‘God’s sake.’)
Actually, if it were not for the constant tilt of most media outlets, the condition of the earth and its climate could be discussed and better known by young and old, alike. We are just coming to the end of a very hot summer. There were drought conditions in many countries. We will soon be inundated with claims of the planet having a “fever” and “the earth is on fire,” and similar declarations. So far, we haven’t suffered a hurricane coming ashore to the United States; as soon as one does, we’ll be told there are more -and stronger – storms because of our driving “fossil-fueled cars” and resisting buying non-polluting “electric vehicles,” EV’s. If we have a severely snowy winter with lots of cold, cold days, they’ll all be our fault, too.
There is some supposed perfect average global temperature… one we like. It is impossible to define the “ideal” climate, the ideal temperature, the ideal amount of ice at the poles, the ideal amount of cloud-cover or precipitation… or the ideal anything else. What does seem easy to idealize is the right population the earth should hold and support, and it is a Hell of a lot smaller than the population we have, today. Various oligarchs, like Bill Gates and others, think the world is overpopulated by 5 BILLION people, or even more. It’s going to take substantial new rates of sterility and deaths to achieve the “ideal.” What an achievement that will be.
Around the planet ice is melting… from the poles (supposedly), Greenland, various glaciers and so forth. This causes terrible worries. Oddly, they’re more terrible for leftists in the West, than for conservatives. They don’t make a damned bit of difference to leftists in Russia, China, India and elsewhere, or to Islamists, who are happy with any number of earthlings as long as they’re all Muslims – the right kind of Muslims.
It’s rather comforting that the climate is changing, whether warming or cooling at any time: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years – maybe billions of years… as long as we’ve had an atmosphere. No one would want to be here on the day the climate STOPS changing. For most people, “climate change” translates as “global warming.” We can see videos of running water on Greenland and shrinking glaciers in the mountains. Definitely, it’s warming. Then we have a summer like 2022’s and we are convinced of the imminent danger of the seas rising and a hurricane toppling our houses. Look what happened to New Orleans, for Pete’s sake. Maybe if they’d all had electric cars in 2005, the people who wasted the federal moneys for strengthening the dikes around the ninth ward might have gone to jail.
It’s hard to predict the future, and that’s the only kind of predicting there is. There is a form of false, God-save-us-if-this-happens sort of prognosticating, though, that is employed stridently by “Climate Campaigners.” It’s always negative. People who worry about and inveigh about the climate, are certain that change means some form of doom. They never seem to make any predictions of benefit from “climate change.” It’s always an imminent disaster, and it’s always our fault, meaning that we have to make drastic changes to avert certain death in as few as 10 or 12 years.
The premise of prediction is history. Recorded history of what people have done, or which volcanoes blew up or geologic evidence of mile-thick ice sheets that created the Great Lakes and the like, as well as records of various past weather trends and climatological periods, provide a basis from which inferences are drawn and, in very grave tones, predictions are made about the future of climate and weather over the next hundred years or so. It’s all very scientific, except it’s impossible to replicate the conditions to see if the same effects take place, so climatologists are unable, actually, to apply the scientific method to historic evidence and add to the evidence of the first “experiment,” seeking correlation.
Atmospheric scientists have gained great knowledge and reasonable predictive power of weather deriving from worldwide patterns like El Niño, although little has been said about movements of the magnetic poles, for example, and the focus of charged particles changing cloud formation patterns. The availability of satellite data, global photography and thousands of measurements daily and hourly, have given meteorologists perhaps too much confidence in prediction, and this has seeped in to the self-esteem of climatologists, too.
Whether from ice cores or dendrochronology (tree rings), climatologists can paint what they feel is an accurate picture of what the climate has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Things become more sketchy when they try to make inferences as to WHY they were the way they were. Bias, or belief, can sway even the best scientists’ theories of cause and effect. It’s something “science” ostensibly guards against and works against no matter the line or field of inquiry. Replicating experiments and finding the same or similar results – and publishing those results for other scientists to review and try to replicate or prove wrong, is how science makes real progress towards understanding.
It is not possible to replicate the past; it’s not possible to mimic all the conditions, both on the earth and impacting the earth hundreds or thousands of years ago. But there is great pressure, whether personal or from the all-important funding sources (grants) for a direct correlation to be discerned… cause and effect. Why? Because the reason the study of the past is being funded is often because of beliefs about today’s climate and weather, and that there is a way that humans and their bold politicians can avoid the conditions of the past. A little humidity – if not humility – is called for.
Politicians and the scientists they fund, have an overriding belief that we humans can modify the climate to keep weather as pleasant as we like, the oceans at the depths they currently are, the glaciers as big as they are if not bigger, and polar bears in their favorite conditions, too. Underlying this presumption is a belief that we humans have caused changes in the climate to begin with. Otherwise, we are powerless to undo the damage it is believed we have done! So, to start with, let’s agree that humans HAVE altered the climate somewhat, and not just around cities.
Cities form “heat islands” with huge blocks of real and manufactured stone, steel and asphalt absorbing more sunlight than the natural environment they replaced. But huge, multi-square-mile farms also modify natural environments, also changing sunlight absorption, requiring and transpiring huge volumes of water – water that is artificially moved away from its natural location(s). Are either of these commonplace alterations of the natural environment changing climate? Somewhat, but how much? It is very hard to quantify or even describe. That is, we know the CAUSES we’re concerned about, but we cannot, despite many claims, actually pin down the EFFECTS of these two causes. Certainly there are some, but what should people be forced to stop doing in order to offset those effects? We don’t really know, but there is a strong political pressure to force people to stop doing something because of some politicians’ FEARS. Indeed, one of their biggest fears is of doing nothing or, worse, of failing to force other people to stop doing something.
The urge to do something and to force others to do something comes, deep down, from a belief that a wise-enough human, especially from the leftist persuasion, can control almost anything, including populations, countries and planets. To a great degree, these same authoritarians will automatically adopt any tool or method to control those who aren’t in agreement with them, especially people whose faith tends toward religious origins rather than government ones. Soon, the authoritarians commence to blaming those who don’t agree with their beliefs, for the problems they believe they, the ‘wise,’ are destined to solve. Any contrary data, facts or “science” non-leftists discover, are automatically denigrated and their proponents are labeled “deniers,” as an attempt to more firmly cement the immutable truth of what leftists believe. It becomes difficult to discuss or debate ideas in that environment.
Because CO2 is generated by so many human activities and machines, not least of which is electricity generation, and because climatologists have observed wide fluctuations in the apparent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over millennia from all those ice cores and tree rings, there has grown up a set of beliefs about the correlation of temperatures at different points in time and CO2. We can summarize this fear quite easily: More CO2 than the magical percentage is BAD; less CO2 than the magical percentage is GOOD. Sometimes the rise in CO2 concentration precedes a warming period, sometimes it follows, but there is definitely, we’re almost certain… in fact, we’re so close to certain that it’s time to pass laws that we think will reduce the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere so that the average temperature of the entire planet’s biosphere can be controlled.
Whether these temperature fluctuations are caused by carbon-dioxide or not is unproven and unprovable. But, it is definitely believed by many. Of course, CO2 is essential for life and good for vegetation in particular, from which our food derives: farms and crops and things. So we wouldn’t want to interfere too much, would we? How much is too much? It’s impossible to say, but less than we’re making now, we’re quite certain.
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor are the primary “greenhouse gases.” They’re all natural. Many chlorinated and fluorinated gases that we manufacture also have the effect of “trapping” solar energy. Fortunately, they are much smaller fractions of the atmosphere, although not as small a fraction as the dreaded CO2. [See http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/07/20/a-home-on-the-beach/ ]
It’s common to see descriptions of human contributions to total greenhouse gases based on what percent of our (American) contribution is CO2. This makes it look like CO2 is a gigantic problem and the U. S. contributes over 70% of it! Ye Gods! Stop breathing! On the other hand, it is very reassuring that over 70% of what we contribute is CO2 and not methane or manufactured gases. Methane is natural gas, basically, and the product of bacterial action on organic materials, like food we eat or grasses and grains that cattle, deer, antelope, bears and squirrels eat, among other living things. Those gases escape, both intentionally and accidentally. As far as we know, animal escapes are all accidental. Still, methane is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of which also should be reduced, according to the magical percentage theory of global management. This has led to calls to reduce cattle herds and, less publicized, to reduce human herds, too. Ye Gods, again!
Those who are deeply committed to the magical percentages of greenhouse gases theory, are equally committed to blaming their fellow humans for every weather event that is less than perfectly comfortable for everyone from the Amazon watershed to the arctic tundra. Everything is now our fault. It has become a great tool for forcing people to accept authoritarian government as it lovingly struggles to avert the imminent climate catastrophe. A “climate crisis” is declared repeatedly. Taxpayers and anyone who wants the United States to survive and prosper, should have justifiable concern about any use of “crisis” in relation to items of government interest. The designation is uniformly employed to justify borrowing from future generations to create politically advantageous spending, now. There’s a $31 TRILLION liability on our balance sheet that demonstrates the effectiveness of this spending strategy. Thus it is that “climate change” has become “climate crisis,” a political tool, and not just for the U. S. Climate is global, and through the World Economic Forum [See http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2022/04/16/where-the-globalists-struck-first/ ] it is politically valuable to globalists and other socialists. There is no reason to trust them.
The W.E.F. has determined that nitrogen-based chemicals, like most fertilizers, must be curtailed in order to save the planet. You can see the conflict: humans eat the products of fertilized crops. We like to eat meat, too, often simultaneously, and the animals that provide it also contribute to nitrogen chemicals resulting from bodily functions. It is what it is. The globalist solution? Less eating! Unfortunately, many governments pay attention to the blatherous emanations of the W.E.F., and adjust policies to fit. You can read of the effects of this nonsense in the Netherlands, where farmers are in serious protest, or in Sri Lanka where people are starving. Oddly, the same people who want to mandate the mRNA “vaccines” are they who want to limit food supplies to avoid climate change. Are the two efforts connected in purpose? Population reduction? Certainly, in terms of the net effects of the Covid-19 “vaccines,” population reduction appears to be the biggest net effect. The spike in non-Covid deaths among the healthiest demographic (ages 25 to 64) in the U. S., Canada and the U. K., is continuing. The victims are vaccinated against Covid.
It seems intensely Prudent to be intensely skeptical of the unsubstantiated claims of Climate believers.
We should consider the benefits of warming and the ancillary costs of attempting “carbon neutral” or, worse, “zero carbon” by any date-certain. All the public statements about “climate change” fit under one heading: “The sky is falling!!” Note the dual exclamation points! Once the rabid claims are sorted out – and the overblown statistics corrected-for – the best projection for the extent of warming is 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by year 2100. What are the upsides?
One is longer growing seasons for the crops that sustain the world’s population. This can also translate to requiring less fertilization and more fallow periods for fields, enabling natural processes to enrich the soil between crops. There will be more arable land, now covered by ice. Some may think this is a tragedy, but those who live near the ice are glad to see it go. Earth’s current weather patterns will change. This may mean more rain in lots of areas. Deserts that have evidence of past wet periods might return to that condition, improving opportunities for many peoples to feed themselves and spend less time on subsistence, leaving more time to develop their societies and, perhaps, correct their crappy politics and improve millions of people’s lives and futures.
Less energy will be expended heating homes and other buildings; less fuel expended clearing snow. Meanwhile, should we manage to avoid or stifle the warlike designs of globalists and Communists, the invention and innovation of free, well-nourished people will be making at least as much progress in engineering and science as we’ve made in the past 80 years. Our economies will cost less in energy density, transportation will be logarithmically more efficient. People who are bound by ideologies that condemn half the population, and who are willing to twist “science” for political advantage, cannot conceive of humans creating solutions to the problems that serve one political ideology today: leftist authoritarianism.
In short, there are more reasons to hope for the future than to fear it. If we have the wisdom to restore freedom as our flame of purpose, there is nothing to fear. Biden and his ilk will be gone. Education will be dramatically decentralized and made honest and non-ideological. Freedom, Hope and Genuine Progress: bring it on!
It is certainly obscure, even mysterious, why a wealthy oligarch like George Soros would expend his fortune on the election of socialist, soft-on-crime District and States’ Attorneys. He has had an outsized impact on not only crime rates and, automatically, the victims of criminal acts, but also on the reduction in trust of government, police and justice, itself. Still, there must be a plan.
It doesn’t seem that Soros’ purpose stems from a love of crime or even any particular sympathy for the weak-minded dopes who commit crimes. He doesn’t appear to be an advocate for all things anti-White or pro-Black. But, there must be a plan and, considering his actions Prudently, the shape of the plan can be discerned. It is quite simple.
Soros is a socialist – a virulent one. He doesn’t seem to trust Communists, which is a mark of intelligence, but, like most political socialists, believes that socialism can be controlled and manipulated to fit the goals of oligarchs and one-worlders. By employing a process that breaks down civil order and public safety, Soros makes clear his contempt for the “proletariat,” which is most of us. He has always seemed offended, as it were, by the Constitutional limits that underpin the United States, the belief in “unalienable rights” that they guarantee, and, even more, the basically Christian love of freedom and personal sovereignty. Soros hates the power and influence of the United States of America, and of Americans.
So, it seems clear that the purpose of destroying cities through increasing crime and lack of trust in authority, is designed to force Americans to accept authoritarian forms of government… so as to “clean up” the crime, drug, homelessness and other problems that make normal citizens unsafe. It’s simple, really, and it won’t take long. There is already a significant political party/movement that is pushing for exactly the solutions Soros wants: Democrats. Their experience in promoting and excusing multi-city rioting and destruction, weakening of police departments and removal of the only populist president in our lifetimes, in 2020, and the ability to control almost everyone, including stripping many of their “unalienable rights” by building up the Covid-19 scare of 2020 – 2021 and beyond, encourages Democrats to attack the Constitution directly. They, and Soros, have won some victories.
Are any students, anywhere in America, learning why what Soros has been doing with his money is evil and anti-American? By the same token, are any learning about the Constitution, itself?
The Biden “administration” has done everything it could in 19 months to destroy the trajectory of the U. S. economy, and, possibly, U. S. permanence. Above all, everyone is either helped or hurt by the big “bugaboo,” inflation. Economists, pundits, commenters and news-readers galore, all have wise-sounding opinions, yet no one seems to know what inflation IS!
It seems Prudent to assume that some of them do, but the average person listening to any such is not going to find it out. To a mouth, all say in so many, many words, that “inflation” is prices increasing. Well, no it isn’t. Inflation is inflation of the money “supply.” And that isn’t even accurate; it’s inflation of available cash OR CAPITAL that is “liquid,” or lendable. Capitalism and “inflation” go hand-in-hand to create prosperity for most people.
“Wait just a minute,” you’re thinking, “Inflation makes prices go up, and that’s bad, so it’s not helping MY prosperity.” Actually, it has helped it – look at the riches and bounty we enjoy. It’s a two-edged sword… like fire. It can cook our food, keep us warm, run our engines or… burn the house down. The key is keeping inflation where it runs the engine without burning down the house. So, where does this wonderful inflation come from?
The simple answer is debt. Our economy – even your personal economy – operates on a “futures” basis. If you own your home you probably have a mortgage on it, which is a long-term debt, well into the future. One of the quirks in our economy is that banks can legally loan out more “money” than they actually have on deposit. It’s called “fractional reserve,” and it is about 14%. In other words, among all the stored “savings” deposits and “performing loans” and temporary deposits, the “Bank” has an average number of dollars “in reserve,” at any given time. If it amounts to a million dollars, our laws allow the bank to lend out up to $7 Million, round numbers, of which 6/7ths is, fundamentally, air. So long as the honesty and ability to repay of most borrowers are intact, this is a safe system and the recipient of the check for the house you bought, accepts the dollars that were created to write it, as well as if he saw them peeled from a big fat roll of $100-dollar bills.
If the seller of the house also dealt with the same bank, his or her new deposit of, say, $400 thousand will, for a while, increase the average “reserve” the bank can lend seven times as much of.
Anyway, you commit to paying your mortgage for 20 or 30 years because the pain of losing your home is worse than the pain of making the payments. Besides, you have a job, you’re productive, you’re helping to create profits somewhere – productive surplus, if you will. It is reasonable that you will keep your promise to pay. You have made your work valuable enough to produce some “productive surplus” for your own family.
Try to imagine where the construction industry and millions of jobs would be if there were no such thing as mortgages or construction loans. But, if you’re worried about inflation, look at what you just did: you caused the inflation of the money supply by about $340,000! Depending on the “velocity” of that money (through the economy), possibly even more than that. But! It’s OK. You’re going to pay it down – or “back” – to the bank. Owning that house will cause you to buy a bunch of other stuff that increases production (let’s hope, inside the U. S.), as well as future repairs and upgrades, and it will enable you to raise your children to become productive, too.
Transactions like these happen thousands of times a day, whether for homes, or cars, or work vehicles, trailer trucks and on and on. Every loan creates some inflation, but not more than the “economy” will absorb, or, we might say, not more than the economy needs.
In the process of economic activity, wages, sales and so forth, governments collect taxes. That is, BECAUSE THERE IS PRODUCTIVE SURPLUS in our economic activity, “we” can afford to pay taxes for those services and public works that individuals cannot provide for themselves. Among these are public school facilities, police departments, fire departments, all the bureaucrats who are there to help US, the military, highway and roadway constructions, sewage treatment, water works and sewers, themselves. All that stuff is paid for from productive surplus. If kept in a rough balance, it all works together amazingly well as more people become productive and relatively financially independent, and benefiting in safety and economy from our shared public works.
How does it get out of balance? Put most simply, if the money supply grows with no commensurate increase in production or productivity. Take the example we’ve experienced recently where governments, based on perceived, raw, political advantage, decree that the “minimum wage” shall be $15.00 per hour. A kid stuck at the fry station in a McDonald’s, making French fries for as many customers as desire some, gets a sudden, say, 20% pay increase. He or she cannot fry more potatoes than before the raise, there are only so many orders for fries in a given day. The added pay does not enable the fry-kid to encourage more people to buy fries than they used to buy before the change in pay. Do you think the individual cost of an order of fries is going up? Of course. Or, is it possible that customers might wait a little longer to get their fries – and their whole orders, when it’s busier? Perhaps the restaurant owner can’t afford to put two kids at the fry station in busy periods, now that the pay has increased arbitrarily. The customer pays – or suffers – for this arbitrary work rule.
So, French fries go up in price, but is that “inflation?” Well, no, obviously. It’s an imposed change to the “CGS,” or Cost of Goods Sold. How would inflation cause the price of French fries to go up?
Suppose that in a certain marketplace: your town, for example, there are both a lot of disposable income – free cash, as it were – and a limited supply of frozen French fries. Potatoes are neither grown nor processed locally; they are transported some distance to the restaurants that want them in your town. People in your town are in the habit of ordering fries with their burgers and sub sandwiches and business in fries is brisk.
Because the supply of spendable cash has been inflated (increased), people who might have held off adding fries to their sandwich orders, have started to order them more frequently, yet the total volume of fries coming from the processors can’t increase for quite a while, as the extra cash in everyone’s pocket makes it possible to afford the fries in other towns, as well, and the price of fries appears to be a bargain where they used to be a bit of a luxury.
Restaurants are finding that they’re “selling out” of fries and seeing customers go to another restaurant that still has some. The owners get on the phone to order more fries but there aren’t any extra to be had. Very quickly busier restaurants will offer a premium price to the distributor to get an extra case of frozen fries every day. Realizing the nature of the increased demand, the distributor makes a deal with a potato processor who guarantees additional frozen fries, but at a higher wholesale price, too.
Pretty soon, the French fry supply problem is solved and people in your town can obtain all the fries they want, although each order costs a little more. Lo, and Behold! Inflation of the money supply changed demand patterns in the French fry marketplace. This example is too simple, but also real. During the engineered Covid crisis, the federal government wrote checks to millions of people that it/they, the federal, state and municipal governments had thrown out of work… billions and billions of dollars’ worth, but they were from accounts that had no actual – although highly hoped-for-future – money in them! The checks were written from AIR. Worse, they were doled out without regard to increasing productivity or other economic growth. No new crops were planted, tended or harvested; no new mines were opened and their valuable minerals retrieved; no new inventions were spurred causing new manufacturing to commence. But people accepted the ‘air-checks’ and spent them like money. The money supply increased by over a Trillion Dollars while the supply of goods to be purchased actually went DOWN!
Prices started to go up until states started to re-open their businesses and let people go back to work. The economy was roaring back when Biden was shoveled into office. He promptly signed another Trillion-dollar “Covid Relief” bill that was no longer needed, indeed it extended payments to not work, and inflation really started shooting up. The money supply – more air, but who’s counting – was now completely untethered from productivity, production or quantities of goods for sale. In addition, there was an even larger incentive to not work. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) started to take off in a serious way.
Because of “petro-dollars,” a sweetheart deal we made with Saudi Arabia (and, therefore, OPEC) when Nixon closed the gold window in the early ‘70’s, our federal spenders have developed a habit of calling everything a “crisis.” It doesn’t have to be a war, a disaster, a plague… just a problem – like getting re-elected. And, since there is (almost always) a terrible crisis, they can justify borrowing to resolve it. So, they spend about one-third or more, MORE than the real money tax receipts that the federal government collects each year. That missing third or 40% or so must be borrowed, largely adding to the “national debt.”
Now, if the extra federal spending were creating real wealth, which is what real investment does, the loans would steadily be repaid by the productive surplus the investments made possible. Another way of saying it is that the DEBT would be DESTROYED. That’s a good cycle: ideas vetted, loans obtained, practices, processes or new resources are implemented or obtained,* and the new productive surplus can be applied, in part, to “retire” the loan while net societal – or National – wealth increases. Living standards improve and the repaid capital (the loan) becomes available for other real investments.
This neat system collapses when non-productive or ANTI-productive effects of the loan (deficit spending, it’s called) are mandated by law. Most commonly, it collapses because the government borrows money to PAY FOR CURRENT EXPENSES, like welfare, interest on older loans, increasing the numbers of people employed in non-productive pursuits, and so forth. A good example of hiring more people to be non-productive is part of the recently passed “Prosperity Reduction Act,” or, as it is officially mis-labeled, “The Inflation Reduction Act.” Inside of this dishonest legislation is a provision to hire 87,000 more IRS agents, who will harass and impoverish productive people (tax-payers they are called) with absolutely no increase in productive surplus for anyone. Oh, there’ll be some fat paychecks, but the net wealth of our economy will decline.
The extra payroll dollars (among others in the bill) will inflate the money supply, however, and prices will move upward again as more cash chases fewer goods.
There are $600+Billion other dollars in the “bill” that also don’t represent any new production, productivity or wealth… they just lower the value of all the dollars floating around or in your wallet and retirement accounts. Thanks, Brandon.
*Where are new resources “obtained?” Well, there are only so many sources of new wealth that can add to an economy and total wealth of a nation. The first is agriculture. The elements of a crop of wheat or corn or soybeans or potatoes, are relatively inexpensive. We count on God to provide the soil, the rain and sunlight… even the seeds, although humans have figured out how to augment everything but sunlight, and how to till the soil and harvest the crops with automated machinery, which has reduced the cost of labor in food production, as well. Barring weather disasters and political interference, agriculture creates new wealth with every crop-cycle. Many inventions and new mechanizations have been developed in response to the need for better food production as population has grown.
Coincident with expanding agriculture are various forms of mining, whether for coal, metals, oil, gypsum, quartz and dozens of other riches the earth provides. From them have come thousands… no, Millions of products and inventions and improvements to standards of living, not least of which are pharmaceuticals and computer chips. Virtually every one of these bits of progress and improvement has required some “financing,” or, as better known, debt. Little by little every step has also “inflated” the money supply, but in rough equivalence to the new economic activity each has spurred. A lot of that activity has been in the form of “fixed” assets, like buildings, roads, bridges and so forth. At their creation, “fixed” expenditures DEFLATE the money supply, while enabling long-term economic benefit for lots of other activities, comforts or safety.
Somebody is going to paint those buildings. We’re still driving across bridges that were built by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930’s.
Some companies, banks, agencies, treasuries and individuals are benefitted very nicely by inflation, primarily the federal government. They get to spend the money first. Debts and other invoices the federal government owes are paid off with “cheaper” dollars. Increased payrolls result in increased tax receipts. Favored industries obtain contracts and payments to carry out policies incorporated in the inflationary legislation. Millions of votes are purchased as loans are forgiven and exorbitant expenses incurred and paid off. So, some benefit immediately and don’t begrudge deficit spending. Others, tax-payers, not so much.
The actual net result is a reduction in both national and individual wealth for MOST people. The few favored in the legislation get an artificial boost of income. It’s all very unfair and sold to the American people as a universal “good.” But, what does it have to do with “petro-dollars?”
Petro-dollars refers to our agreement with OPEC that oil would be traded only for dollars. Every nation, basically, would need to always have some dollars on deposit – some even made the U. S. dollar a “reserve” currency – so that when they needed to buy oil they could. If they sold oil, they accepted having billions of U. S. dollars on deposit. Dollars could be exchanged for any other currency an “oil” nation needed to buy products from anyone. Still, a global acceptance of dollars gave a golden “carte blanche” to ignorant congresspeople to borrow without any practical limit. All they need is a “crisis.”
At the same time that President Biden has ruined relations with Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC, and attacked fossil-fuels in the United States, multiple countries like Russia, China, Brazil and Iran, are making moves to eliminate the dollar as the currency of trade in oil. When they succeed – WHEN they succeed – countries will start dumping dollars. They won’t have the impetus to buy stuff from the U. S. in order to use up the dollars they have had to hold. Currency markets will turn upside down.
We will experience price increases that are unimaginable. All the goods and goodies that we import now, will have to be paid for with more valuable currencies than U. S. dollars. Exchange rates are going to punish the dollar when that day comes. All the dollars that have been created in other countries and banks have been inflating the same “money supply” we talked about earlier. Every dollar BILL is, in fact, a bill that must be paid with something valuable, not merely with more “Federal Reserve Notes.” The mendacious debt that Congresses and administrations have racked up to the tune of almost $31 TRILLION, will complete its cycle of inflation, as well, while much of the trading world rejects payments in dollars, preferring gold, rubles, rials, or, most likely, yuan. We have no concept of and no political ability to balance our books and bring the number of dollars floating around into alignment with some form of productive output from our economy. Prices, for everything, will shoot up.
We can see the World Economic Forum, a group of self-selected control freaks by which real governments – including our own – are being influenced, is spreading the organic fertilizer of “nitrogen pollution,” since carbon-dioxide hasn’t scared enough people. To limit “nitrogen” requires, in their view, reducing crop yields (by refraining from using chemical fertilizers) and going “organic.” There is an agenda that is far removed from “climate” at work here. What will we do when hyper-inflation is chasing reduced supplies of food around the world? Or, when Chinese- and Bill Gates-owned land is held out from cultivation in our own country? We need miss only ONE growing season to be faced with famine, which is very unpleasant, even here.
Looking at the effects of the “green” movement and the recent pandemic-inspired tyranny, and the so-called vaccines that resulted, the main effects, cumulatively, have been death and sterilization. Sounds like population reduction, if one were being Prudent. Lo, and behold! Bill Gates and the people he hob-nobs with agree that there are too many people on Earth, by a factor of two-thirds or more! Let’s “vaccinate” every person on the planet. Inflation won’t be a problem, then.
When tyranny threatens, elections are months away.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA
The evolution of American constitutionalism responded no more to the several theories of rights and representation of the late 18th Century, as much as to the necessity of freeing ourselves from the shackles imposed by the British Crown and a non-representative Parliament. That freedom would not have been won without “Militias” – home-grown assemblages of armed citizens, by definition, non-governmental organizations. Our Constitution references these quasi-military, self-selected groups of passionate defenders of farm, family and business, in the Second Amendment.
The potency of the Second Amendment is rarely mentioned. Everyone argues over the “… right to keep and bear Arms…” Opponents of gun ownership point to the first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, …” as if it referenced what we now call the State Police, or even “State Militia” which are controlled and limited by our friendly and benign state governments. Some liken the term to the National Guard, which is even further off the mark. “Militia,” in the Second Amendment, refers to self-declared and assembled, armed, private-citizen organizations. It is not clear that such organizations are legally tolerated today.
In fact, there are a number of such groups around the country: legal gun bearers who come together like clubs, perhaps including some militaristic training. They tend strongly toward white-guys, exclusively, sometimes religious, generally anti-federal government. Unfortunately, there is a parallel tendency toward racism, but the number of incidents in which members of such “clubs” attack blacks or others is very, very small… no way comparable to the numbers of blacks who attack everyone else, although never being charged with “racism.”
Militias have a bad name. Still, they are a part of the patriotic front that challenged and stopped the British in the 1770’s, and which became part of the “official” Continental Army under general George Washington. They were tough people, supported by equally tough wives and relatives, both farmers and merchants. How would they fit in to today’s social fabric and political landscape? They are referenced and promoted in our Constitution, but universally denigrated as, mainly, racist crackpots playing with guns.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” What “state” were the framers talking about?
At the time of the fight for independence, the “states” were colonies: 13 separate entities with separate civil authorities appointed by the King or by his governors. To become sovereign states they had to both rid themselves of British governors and soldiers, who were the “police,” as it were, and then establish their own authorities with elections, appointments, codified laws and relatively independent courts. They had, also, to defend themselves. Automatically it became obvious that the colonies had to stand against the British together, else they’d be militarily quashed separately. Without much debate, they formed the Continental Congress and a sense of “nation” was established across fairly diverse colonies. A common enemy will do that.
Militias, essentially, were folded in to the individual colonies’ “Minutemen” forces and ultimately into the Continental Army, but not all of them. Many Militia fighters served key roles in interfering with British supplies and cavalry, harassing them like guerilla fighters, sometimes providing a flanking force when standing ranks faced off on battlefields. However, by the time of the war of 1812, militias were relatively unheard of. Citizens were still armed, but the U. S. Army and Navy then formed the military wherewithal of the new nation, calling up fighters from the states, each of whom represented their states as much as they did the United States.
The Constitution acknowledged and stipulated the importance of “militias,” and stipulated the right to keep and bear arms, but militias, themselves, faded from prominence.
By the end of the Civil War there was no question that the military forces were U. S. forces, and the federal government took on the costs and administration of veterans’ disabilities and welfare. States had police forces, but no longer raised their own “regulars” or trained or equipped them. Militias, if such can be identified at all, devolved into chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, constantly ginning up anger against negroes – a most despicable era of American history. Roughly speaking, the “Union” army and victorious states were “Republicans;” the former confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan itself, were “Democrats.” Democrats supported gun control laws, among other segregationist restrictions, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. To maintain power and influence, the Klan, like revolutionary militias, had to constantly exaggerate the presence of a common enemy: free negroes.
“Militias,” now, are perceived as kooks. Any concept of forming armed forces to overthrow “the government,” is inherently illegal, and only a tiny fraction of Americans in either party think it’s either practical or legitimate. Yet the concept of non-governmental militias is Constitutional! Where could “militias” fit in? First, they’d have to meet standards. Their fellow citizens would have to trust them in terms of public safety and support of the Constitution, itself. Then what?
Somehow, some way, militias would have to coexist with police forces, both municipal and state. Participation in “Guardian” training and functions is a good place to start.
The Guardian Program, yet to be adopted anywhere, is designed to “legitimize” concealed carry, in a sense. The Constitution already protects the right to keep and bear arms – carry them around, in other words: to be individually armed. As a Guardian, the person who is willing to carry a firearm would also be trained in handling, safety and safe reaction in the presence of a crime or imminent criminal act. That person would also wear a “9-1-1” transponder that would identify and locate the individual and alert police forces to a possible active-shooter situation. Meanwhile, the guardian would take such action as practical to defuse a conflict or stop criminal action until police arrived.
Finally, the guardian would be shielded by special indemnification for legitimate and proper actions taken to stop criminal actions, whether on his or her own property or in public. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” The truth of that observation is timeless. Establishing “Guardian” legislation enables the multiplication of police power and effectiveness at very low cost. It also provides vectors for evaluating gun owners and their family environments. If such gun owners formed the core of “militias,” governments and citizens could have confidence in their judgment and rationality.
Militias could also be held to ethical standards. Non-guardians who “joined up” would have to swear to certain behaviors and practices concerning gun ownership, handling and safety inside and outside of their homes. Militia organizations would be subject to fines for failing to adhere to ethical standards or for failing to reject or eject members who fail to do so. Such information would have to be shared with law-enforcement and become part of the unacceptable persons’ records. Most Militias would form through “Rod and Gun” clubs or hunting clubs or “Sportsmens’ Clubs.” Whether they could remain associated with those clubs would be a decision of the club, not of any government. How would a Militia function politically? How would the majority opinions of a Militia or dozens of Militias, enter into public policy or political power? Who would their “common enemy” be?
By definition, the “common enemy” would be our own federal, central government at the moment it is perceived as tyrannical. We have major political forces who are enthralled with government by experts – the bureaucratic state. Decision-making by and for individuals is anathema to these leftist “Progressives.” They are also anti-religious, increasingly opposed to free speech, virulently opposed to the second Amendment as written, and socialist in economics and social organization. Many members of a militia organized to monitor and resist – if not remove – tyranny in our central government, would count “Progressives” among the tyrants. A militia formed by progressives, for such there could be, though unlikely, would see themselves as saviors and conservatives as the common enemy.
Obviously, those most attracted to “militias” would be vilified and hated to greater degrees as members than they are, if at all, as relatively quiet, unobtrusive neighbors and co-workers.
Militias would tend to be somewhat secretive in their meetings and deliberations. Using common social media communications would leave them open to attack and interference. They will want to network – and perhaps coordinate – with other militias through a modern version of “Committees of Correspondence” as was done in Revolutionary times, when their discovery would have resulted in arrest and torture. If not actual secrecy, strict confidentiality would be essential to operation and growth of militias. But, how, short of taking up arms in fact, would constitutional militias influence political, governmental actions and direction?
Clearly they would have to be financially independent of government support or tax abatement or tax-free status on any places of meeting or practice / training. They would be subject to continuous hate from leftists and racists, for they would not be able to control militias from the inside. They would have to be scrupulous about opening membership to anyone who met their standards of behavior and ethics, which standards would include legal gun ownership, by definition. But, again, how would a militia influence political power? Could a militia sway the votes of others?
Communications, communications, communications. As with the Committees of Correspondence, militias would have to present factual and documented positions on the actions of government(s) and of elected or appointed officials. They would have to lay bare the nature of tyrannies large and small that made clear the un-representative nature of those in power including, most specifically, the expenditures of public monies. To do so would mean operating publishing businesses in both print and digital formats. Since a militia would not be a political “party” or be attempting to run candidates of its own, its publications would have to be both historical and current, and easily comprehensible as to how an issue/ topic either resisted tyranny of the state (or municipality) or fit into a tyrannical or potentially tyrannical action that threatened Constitutionally guaranteed rights or the freedoms of individuals.
Would anyone care if they did this work? Would citizens listen? Militias, like those that deposed tyranny at the inception of our country, have an obligation to pursue wisdom and to act upon it. The first militias had the wisdom of recognizing tyranny and of how to multiply their effectiveness in fighting it. It led them to wonderous courage and sacrifice. To fulfill that legacy, Constitutional militias must form with that same sort of commitment. Membership would not be a sport or part-time interest. Just as “the Left” maintains decades, if not centuries, of commitment to upending Biblical truths and models of behavior and governance based on individual freedom and responsibility, Militias must maintain a singular purpose to inform other Americans of the lies and evil of Socialism and Communism, backed up by the ability to risk everything to overthrow tyranny in defense of the American Way.
The creation of one militia, independent and uncorrupted, will bring forth many others, and their creation still more. We have learned after dozens of congresses and hundreds of representatives and senators, that the election of readily corruptible men and women who enter office with pathways of personal wealth and influence providing them all too many comforts and excuses for failure, has not – and will not – bring about the change needed to save and preserve our nation, our Constitution and our integrity. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
There are always consequences to corruption in government agencies… and officials… and it’s not always mere dollars. Simple graft is bad enough for it demonstrates the willingness to lie more or less directly to the people an official or “representative” has sworn to serve while in office. Typically, we, the foolish voters in either party, see our “humble” servants gain ever more comfortable styles of living, but those gaining the increased comforts are usually careful to hide the actual scale of thefts from which they benefit, and we re-elect them. We tell ourselves that the problems facing government are the fault of other or previous representatives or senators, mayors, city councilors, governors or, ultimately, presidents, not the ones for whom WE voted. Our civil society is breaking down, it seems, in every way we contemplate, and yet we only shake our heads when trying to explain what is happening. The scale of American civil failure disturbs us and we try our best to isolate the one thing we would change if we ran the zoo, but it’s not really clear that our ideas would really cause the change we think we want. Besides, we’re busy and, fortunately, there’s an election on the horizon and we’ll be able to change the party holding power – or most of it – and “things” will get straightened out.
Except they rarely do get straightened out, or even “change” very much. Over the past, say 70 years, America’s direction has not been toward strength or toward moral purity, but toward weakness and moral decline. Still, there appears to be a majority in the country that prefers moral straightness and traditional American honesty and trustworthiness. Why have “things” declined – lately quite dramatically, in the past 30 years in particular – when most people want the direction to be otherwise? It’s a damned good question.
The Prudent thing to do, as our erstwhile Vice-President, Kamala Harris, likes to say, is look for a “root cause.”
Prudence offers a theory of the root cause based on extensive evidence: official corruption. We are in decline not because “the times” are changing. In fact, we have purposefully caused our own decline by electing corrupt people, and then re-electing them over and over. The effects of this simple process are very complex – for good, purposeful reasons – and far-reaching to, now, threatening the survival of our nation. While this sounds like there’s a single “thing” we could change to correct our decline, if this theory is true, we are so far gone that no election or piece of legislation can do it. But Prudence is committed to never leaving her readers without a solution, or a host of them, so fasten your seatbelts.
Fifty thinkers studying the problem would have 150 opinions about what should be our FIRST move, and in truth, it is the largest conundrum. So, we have to look for some of those root causes so that beloved corrupt politicians can’t make things worse. Although its strictures are being eroded as quickly as the left (it’s always “the left”) can chip away at them, our remarkable Constitution is still the fundament of our laws and means of governance. However, it cannot speak to our modern, sophisticated ways and means of subversion and corruption. It needs some upgrading via amendment, and via an amendment process that cannot be corrupted by our “deep state” or current elected officials and representatives. It won’t be easy, but Article V. of the constitution provides the mechanisms for proposing and adopting Amendments. One such mechanism is for 34 states to apply to Congress for the calling of a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. The Congress must issue the call for such a convention, and then step aside, as the Constitution allows for no further role for the Congress in this mode of proposing amendments. Ratification is performed by the states, too: three quarters, or 38 of them.
The key to saving our nation, then, is the nature of those who actually attend the Convention, and there is the crux of the matter. It seems obvious to Prudence that “the left” should have no role in such a Convention. How can this be ascertained? Could there be a test of philosophies to select each state’s delegates, like Supreme Court nominees? State legislatures are going to control who represents their states. One can hope that the 34 states that ultimately make Application to the Congress to call the Convention, will be the more conservative states, but there is no certainty to that. Many resolutions over the decades have been passed by one state legislature only to be rescinded by a later legislature. Most had specified one or two purposes for the Convention to form into amendments. In many cases, the nature of those reasons to call for the Convention were the reasons for recission, later.
The likelihood of actually convening an “Article V. Convention of the States” appears remote. A more likely possibility is that during Republican control of both houses of congress, an amendment could be proposed and submitted to the states for ratification. Such an action requires a two-thirds vote in both houses, but no approval from a President. Still, there will be a problem obtaining even that much cooperation when one of the key elements of an amendment is to impose term limits on Senators and Representatives. Could the case be made that the time had come for courage and sacrifice? It all depends on how corrupt the Congress is at the time. But let’s assume that a clean, traditionalist, pro-American delegate body could be filtered out and assembled. What are the “TOP 12” fixes the amendment should include?
Term limits for federal offices keeps coming up as of prime importance. With our longer lifespans, instant communications and unbridled budgeting with perpetual debt, the opportunities for becoming wealthy in Congressional “service,” are legion. All that is required is a tingle of corrupt aggrandizement. One need only pick apart any budget legislation or any “emergency” spending bill – often an “omnibus” bill – that is more than 20 or 30 pages long, and numerous “earmarks” can be found. These happy “gifts” to Rep’s and Senator’s districts and, often, key supporters, are the price we pay to keep our elected “representatives in office for 20, 40 or more years. During those decades the motivation to represent the constituents who elect a 2-year or 6-year representative, is twisted into the overarching motivation to keep a cushy, well-paid job in which lots of people treat the lucky “seat-holder” as if he or she were very important. News media seek out the elected and ask for their unique and oh-so-important thoughts about whatever is “hot” at the moment. Before too many months have passed since taking office, the elected begin to think that they are wise, not just smart. After the first re-election, they also begin to accept that they occupy their “seat” because they are one of the uniquely capable humans who can understand the positions to which they have been elected, and understand, at the same time, the incredibly complex and arcane workings of government and legislation. How fortunate are the ordinary people who are represented by any one of these august creatures.
We have a “system” of election and “representation” that corrupts men and women, alike. Their jobs are too comfortable and too permanent. We pay them too well no matter how poor or sloppy a job they do, and no matter how poorly the country and their constituents are doing. There are too many “perks” and advantages built into their job descriptions and, with the exquisite tools available for twisting news and social media, there is virtually no oversight of their performance. We re-elect them so that they might “fight for us” in Washington, or, at least, so that they can keep the scurrilous bastards and bitches in the other party from taking away our Medicare, 401k’s or Social Security, or from raising taxes and fees and imposing onerous regulations.
Helping to grease the skids toward illicit wealth are an army of lobbyists – more than we can imagine. Many of them represent not only business and hand-out interests, but also foreign countries who all, it turns out, have their hands out, too.
The whole corrupted enterprise depends in large part on long-term relationships with those lobbyists and the abiding motivation to be re-elected. What makes it work is repetitive re-election. The first article of the new Amendment should be Term Limits on consecutive terms of service. It doesn’t seem proper to create a group of people who cannot run for certain offices. Forcing them to remain out of particular offices for a period of 4, 6, 8 or 12 years will open up representation to people who are NOT compromised by lobbyists and re-election corruption.
The second article should pertain to the budget, but not simply that it be balanced. It should force Congress to manage budget legislation while forcing oversight of the administrative state and the flood of regulations that emanates from it. So, the “A” paragraph will force the congress to budget no more revenue than that collected in the previous 12 months, and that it shall have 4 budgetary cycles to accomplish this goal. The “B” paragraph will require that every Cabinet Department’s budget and planned regulatory effort for the next budget year, shall be analyzed and approved or modified separately from other departments. A sub-committee shall also be charged to review existing regulations and to recommend changes to or “sunsetting of” regulatory regimes. Finally, the “C” paragraph shall require a date-certain for completion of budgeting and oversight that is prior to the beginning of the next fiscal 1-year or 2-year period.
A third article would simply state that the Congress may, by law, change federal budgeting to be bi-annual rather than annual, should the work of review described in Article 2 take longer than will allow for annual budgeting.
The fourth article will require that: A. No legislation may include items of appropriation or law that are not listed in the title of the bill; B. No bill that raises or lowers taxes may be more than 40 pages long, printed in 8 point or larger type; C. Any bill that appropriates funds for projects or support for any cause or construction that impacts a single District or two or more Districts in a single state must be presented as a single bill to be voted upon separately from any other matter; and, D. Any “continuing resolution” deemed necessary for continued operation of any agency or department of the Federal Government shall include spending at a rate equal to that of the budget cycle preceding that which is just ending, whether a 1-year or 2-year budget cycle.
Finally, the fifth article will replace Social Security with a mandated private investment plan at the same rate of payroll contributions as currently required, with restrictions on dates of retirement similar to those now enforced. A period of years would be required to completely phase out the current federal “piggy-bank” structure of Social Security so that once privatized – carefully overseen and regulated – the funds will build wealth for taxpayers and cease being a drain on the Federal budget.
There are a hundred other ideas for cleansing our federal spending and taxation and limiting opportunities for self-enrichment while in office. With more frequent turnover of elected personnel the expectation will be that more Congress-people will employ statesmanship more often, and not fear fighting the bad habits of others. The same will limit the amount of damage a bad-apple can do in his or her limited period in office.
Meanwhile, let us stop electing career politicians. Let’s impose our own term limits, particularly at the caucus and primary levels. The office-holders who have participated in expanding the debt to, now, more than $30 TRILLION, do not deserve re-election. Remain Prudent.
Prudence observed, recently, that 2022 would be “the” year. It would be the year that is the fulcrum of history, thought Prudence Leadbetter, and every passing hour appears to confirm that prognosis. Not only is it a mid-term election year in the United States, but war has broken out in Europe, Canada briefly descended into fascism over Covid vaccine mandates, and China could finally decide it’s a good time to smash Taiwan. Why should Putin have all the fun?
Americans are going to have their first opportunity to balance the scales after having allowed a most questionable election to install the worst administration in a long lifetime. There are many questions as to what the consequences of current events may ultimately be, and people have a right to ponder the hundreds of possibilities. Let’s consider a few.
How long and how large will the Russo-Ukraine war be? In one view, the best result is a quick victory for Russia and Vladimir Putin. That will stop the fighting and provide some satisfaction for the Russians, probably stopping their adventurism. On the other hand, the Ukrainians are not interested in being part of Russia, again, and are fighting ferociously for their land, families, homes and neighbors. Europe and the U. S. are belatedly providing ammunition, supplies and armaments to Ukraine to whatever degree they can be transhipped to a nation at war for its life. Without a doubt, the take-over of Ukraine is not proceeding, for Putin, as he intended. This has made him less rational; he has placed his nuclear forces on “high alert.”
Had the first desired scenario worked out: rapid collapse of the Ukranian government and surrender of Ukranian forces in a few days, perhaps with Zelenskyy fleeing in fear, then Russia could clamp down on Ukraine, start making nice with its NATO neighbors and the world would adjust, amidst grumbling and sputtering, to a new reality. Putin would be left stronger inside Russia and on the world stage.
However, the second, more dangerous scenario may be playing out. That is that Russian brutality must increase to the point of war crimes, if not already there, and even if successful in crushing Ukranian resistance, Russia is left a pariah nation and Putin, if he retains power in Moscow, will lose face and influence and any semblance of trust around the world. Russia will be sanctioned by loss of trade, particularly in oil and gas, weakening it nationally, and possibly reducing cooperation with bordering republics. NATO will be strengthened. Amidst this messier turn of events, Putin might do something really stupid… something that draws the United States into direct conflict. God forbid.
Another question; Will Democrats attempt even more blatant election fraud to hang onto power in the 2022 midterms? Despite the inability to prosecute any of the most questionable results, an inability built into the distributed nature of Presidential elections, there are many questions, including Constitutional ones, that no court, including the Supreme Court was interested in hearing, about the conduct of elections in 2020. Nor did any state want to reverse its certification of electors when that would place them on the ”outs” with a new administration controlling the flows of dollars to state budgets. It can all be “blamed” on the fear of Covid-19, but the extra-legal changes to voting practices in 2020, were THANKS to Covid-19, not fear of it.
That 2020 experience should be instructive to Americans: the Democrat Party is willing to subvert both standards and laws to retain its hold on power. The desperation they felt in the face of a most-likely re-election of Donald Trump and his exposure of the deep state bad actors who participated in the attempted destruction of the Trump presidency, was enough to encourage that party to attack election laws in many states, permitting vote-by-mail and unlimited absentee voting, vote harvesting and numerous other weakenings of voter identification. There is evidence of international electronic connection to voting machines that were, ostensibly, not legally internet connected, and within that illegal action, evidence that foreign actors created blocks of votes that were “dumped” into the electronic records of key states when it became obvious that Trump’s majority would be larger than they had planned to overcome. They got away with it and Biden’s electors were certified.
What, then, are Democrats prepared to attempt in November of 2022?
Next question: Will China seize on Biden’s weakness to attack Taiwan in 2022? Despite its obvious use of Covid-19 to weaken other nations, China is not yet the pariah it should be, internationally. Many countries are beholden to China for “development” loans they have “paid off” with grants of industrial, raw-material, or military access to their resources, land or coastlines. Many western leaders are becoming richer through Chinese-led corruption, the greatest of which is the Biden crime family, followed closely by Nancy Pelosi’s husband and Mitch McConnell’s wife. Hundreds of millions of Chinese dollars enter the U. S. political arena through universities, non-governmental organizations, various non-profits and relatively direct political contributions through straw donors. Politically, America is compromised. It is a Chinese strategy that is well-known and well-ignored by our “elites” and the political class.
Does China believe the time is right to move on Taiwan? We’ll find out, probably around Labor Day. They, and Democrats, will perceive that crisis as politically positive for Democrats. God forbid.
Will there be a banking or currency crisis in 2022? The question hinges not only upon the long-term desire of Russia, China and Saudi Arabia and others to unseat the U. S. dollar as the universal and reserve currency, but also on the oil and gas global trade – something in which President Biden has severely weakened the U. S. position and influence. It’s almost as though he intended to damage the U. S. economy in as many ways as possible. Be that as it may, trade dollars, or “petro-dollars,” in practice, became the standard for international conversion for most trade. This status has also made it possible to create dollars (of DEBT) whenever the U. S. felt like it, which, since the Great Society began, followed by Nixon’s closing of the gold conversion “window,” in 1973, is virtually every budget year. The government used to borrow in times of war or depression, only – during actual crises, in other words. However, since the federalization of welfare, there has been a “crisis” nearly every year.
The U. S. has “borrowed” something over $30 TRILLION dollars, since then, without ever attempting to pay it back. In return we have seen fit to act as the world’s policeman and foreign-aid piggy-bank. With the fall of the Soviet Union and general maintenance of stability in global trade and relative peace, sort-of, for the U. S., the rest of the world went along with America’s debt creation and erosion of dollar-value, and our de-facto empire, but the system has grown tiresome and the U. S. has grown less reliable. Plus, in our soft-hearted / soft-headed immorality, we have gained many enemies that we refuse to recognize or even describe, many of whom are unmoved by stable trade. Indeed, some have brought America to virtual surrender regardless of the hundreds of billions of military dollars and thousands of lives we have “invested.”
Fewer nations trust us as allies than did 50, 30 or even 10 years ago, possibly than did even 4 years ago. Precious few will defend our economy when China and others decide to pull the plug on the dollar. What will that mean? To start, look at the labels on things you buy.
Many of our vegetables and fruits come from other countries, for example. If the international standing of the U. S. dollar evaporates, what will we use to buy that produce? If South and Central American nations, New Zealand, Southeast Asian nations start to require Chinese renminbi for trade, where will we get some to trade with? Buy them with our own dollars? Why would China want them? Sell some gold to China? Sell some, ahhh… what, to China? Land???
The U. S. has been acting like an international social-service agency for decades. This has fitted with the leftist view because it weakens the dominance of the U. S. A. We have agreed, repeatedly, to buy products to help smaller, poorer nations. We have agreed to offshore manufacturing to, mainly, China, but also to several other nations, including in Europe. We’re such nice, friendly folks. Now, we haven’t sent fast-food “manufacturing” to other countries, so maybe we could trade hamburgers for our fruits and vegetables. Eh, probably not. French Fries, maybe. In our dense “wisdom,” we have already sold off a lot of farmland and food processing to China. That sounds smart.
Much of America’s power is wrapped up in our position in the global banking system. Most nations store their gold in New York, for example, with international transactions performed on handcarts between vaults a few yards apart. Most currency exchange rates are based on the U. S. dollar, secondarily on the British pound sterling, a remnant of the British empire’s dominance prior to World War One. This works because every nation relies on dollars for international trade, a remnant of American dominance after World War Two. The final remnant of dollar-dominance harkens back to the final closing of the gold window in 1973. America had been willing to sell gold to multiple other nations at the then-current exchange rates with the dollar (“redeeming dollars” held by other nations), but we were running out of physical gold. Enter the “petro-dollar.”
The U. S. made a deal with the House of Saud that Saudi Arabia would sell oil contracts with other countries denominated in dollars. Other OPEC nations had to go along. Several ramifications manifested. One was/is that most nations needed to have dollars in order to buy oil, the most widely traded commodity. Because of a high trust level in the honesty of U. S. institutions – including banks, like the Federal Reserve – countries held dollars as part of their reserves. This “soaked up” a lot of dollars and helped/helps maintain the international value of the dollar.
The U. S., however, effectively flaunts the benefit of having other nations hold and trade in dollars, by creating debt for its own domestic purposes. This ramification exposes the fraudulent nature of American governance over the past 50 years or so, and now amounts to more than $30 TRILLION, with no end in sight. This one process threatens U. S. sovereignty and fiscal stability more than any other. Another ramification is the frenetic speculation in currency exchange rates. By trading in currency “futures,” countries “forced” to hold petro-dollars are able to hedge against dollar fluctuations, but the net effect is to weaken the dollar to keep commodity prices low (oil, natural gas, wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, pork, beef, steel, chicken, etc.). It also makes American manufactured products relatively expensive, helping to encourage manufacturers to off-shore production to lower-cost countries, hurting American labor and other economic segments, and driving up the need for Americans to buy products from overseas. So long as other nations need to have dollars to obtain energy and other commodities, they will accept dollars in payment for their manufactured goods. What if that stopped? Can you imagine astronomical price increases? Rates like 100% per year or more?
Life would change.
Financial gurus have been predicting an economic “reset” for years, and the unseating of the U. S. dollar is its basis. Yet, politically, we continue to borrow and spend as though the rest of the world will put up with American mendacity forever. What the Hell is a debt ceiling, anyway?
Very soon, Russia will complete its Ukraine travesty, simultaneously emasculating Europe and NATO, and China will then finalize its move on Taiwan. What “sanctions” do the Biden administration expect to use to counter that move? Whether sanctions or real military resistance, China always has the leverage over American debt, and will happily move to unseat the dollar, completing its own elevation to dominance in the world. At that point the U. S. will be unable to AFFORD to defend itself, an unforgivable circumstance. Would we turn over the keys to the country in a Rose Garden ceremony? Do you think we’d go nuclear? Do you think our progress on transgender equity in our military services enhances our deterrence?
Americans have elected, re-elected and re-elected, sometimes 15 times or more, the same scoundrels who have become wealthy in office while plunging the country into unheard-of debt. That debt is on us, everyone, not on those we’ve elected, because they have done that deed in our name. And we have rewarded them for it. Can we possibly turn our eyes away from the truth and expect life to go on with borrowed funds forever? Do we think it’s too complicated for us poor rubes to figure out? One day those debts (loans) will be “called” when that move can do the most damage to us. Of all the weaponry, research and advantage we have allowed our enemies to steal, the greatest threat is the one we created for ourselves, and that just to keep certain liars in power. Shame on us. Maybe this will abruptly change in 2022 when Republicans take over from the Democrats. If you have evidence of such being likely, please share it widely.
Amidst the wholesale weakening of the United States nation since Trump left office, we are suddenly facing the one alliance we have long hoped would never manifest: China and Russia, and in combination with China’s long-term economic attacks (including organized theft of technology and advanced research), now a combined, hot, military threat. Most Americans, automatically sympathetic towards the suffering Ukranians, are mostly blind toward the imminent threat of Chinese military action. This is upon us while the Biden administration has halted the momentum toward strengthening the U. S. military. God forbid that our country face its second existential threat while the fools in this administration are in charge. Our national independence and sovereignty could be lost in a week, if it comes to that.
This is the year. 2022 has been forced by the left to be the fulcrum of history. The perception of the left in 2020, faced with the likelihood of Trump’s re-election, was that the field was finally fertile enough to sow Communism (under a variety of euphemisms) in the sharply divided and guilt-ridden, formerly United States. Cities were collapsing in 2020, “Black Lives Matter” had coordinated with thousands of weirdos, “antifa” thugs and students and other youth who had been taught to hate our nation and history. The time seemed right to pull the trigger on revolution… besides, the media and a strange congress had many municipal leaders so consumed with hatred for Donald Trump and the Americanism he represented, that they too, agreed with “BLM” and allowed rioting in the name of myriad hatreds to destroy their communities.
The demise of George Floyd provided the spark as if written into a script. If Derek Chauvin had not been so incredibly stupid, some other event would have happened, some other black man would have conflicted with police and drawn fire while unarmed. Then his family would have become millionaires and Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of other dopes would have kneeled in the rotunda in that man’s memory, while the same cities – and hopes – burned.
The left engineered the answer to a big wish of theirs: dumping Donald Trump. We can begin to grasp what leftists really have for an end-game, when we dissect their hatreds, and their hatred for Trump – and trump supporters – is instructive. Trump, they decry, is a “populist,” which is to say, he only goes with what is “popular.” “Populist,” however, actually means being a member of the “Populist Party,” which gained traction in the late 19th century over issues like initiating an income tax, public ownership of utilities, support for unionization to counter the power of large corporations and banks, and support for fair returns for farmers. As a “people’s” party, the Populists were seeking to balance economic freedom for small business and workers, against the explosion of industrial growth and price-fixing power of industrial and financial trusts. Many of these issues were assumed by Progressives and the “Trust-Busters” in the first decade of the 20th century.
The more meaningful approbation of Trump is that of “Nationalist.” This is supposedly terrible, and likened to Nazism, ostensibly because Hitler was a nationalist. “America First” became pejorative in the view of leftists. So, what is the alternative goal? Globalism: the dissolution of national identities and, therefore, national heritage and culture. Destruction of American culture was the primary effect of 2020 lawlessness. It seemed to have many allies, one of whom is now president. What were/are they thinking?
Anti-nationalism has only one goal, globalist, one-world government. Is there any reason to expect that one-world government will be based on the American, Constitutionally limited model? We can learn a lot from the last 50 years of United Nations “enlightenment.” The vaunted U. N. was a creation of liberals and leftists who sold war-weary Americans on the image of diverse peoples all getting along to spread peace, democracy and the end of hunger around the world. Communists never accepted those premises, nor did other kinds of tyrants… nor Nazi-enflamed fundamentalist Muslims. To poorer nations it was a way to get money from the United States; to Communists a way to weaken the United States, to Muslims, a way to get the U. S. to pay for oil for poorer nations while weakening Christianity.
Within a very short time the U. N. became an excusatory congress for the U. S. policy of containing Communism, and we were thrust into the Korean Conflict for that stated purpose, but at its heart that war was an excuse to pit the U. S. against the Soviet Union and, ultimately, against communist China, while weakening the only super-power. It was the first war we won by losing: a new experience for the greatest generation.
Right on its heels the globalist C.I.A. and State Department leftists concocted what became the Viet-Nam War, the scars of which have never healed. Still ostensibly “containing” Communism, the U. S. consumed about a $Trillion dollars (back when a Billion dollars was a lot of money) and destroyed Americans’ faith in their military. So many lies were told about the conduct and success of that stupid conflict, that the Army had to hire hundreds of paid dissemblers to keep up with the flow. Again, we lost by winning, and were shamed.
Since Viet-Nam we have embarked on numerous military adventures, most of which are unknown to Americans and better grasped by other nations, including our enemies, of which there is a considerable list. At the same time we have exhausted our credit line with policies of welfare, corporate, family and personal, international and more. Nine administrations and 18 Congresses have seen fit to overspend – not at declining but at INCREASING rates. We now have commitments that cannot be met, and devaluing the currency is the final effect. Americans are seeking a political solution to a philosophical deficit: we have accepted the blandishments of socialists and communists for 60 years and mismanaged our industrial base so badly that we can barely afford to defend ourselves, much less project power to constrain tyrants. Freedom is shrinking, everywhere.
Americans have swayed from responsibility to licentiousness, forswearing God and religion, turning instead to the perpetual debt-creation of government. We are not able to sacrifice for a better future as our parents and grandparents did, automatically. We have a plethora of foolish rights… and fewer freedoms. The freedoms remaining are under assault, now that we have elected a tyrant of our own.
So, 2022 poses a host of problems that took a long time to gestate, but which need to be corrected in very short order. It will take sacrifice on everyone’s part. America has never been invaded, discounting the War of 1812, and we have not felt the devastation and losses of war. But a war is brewing, here amongst us, and a welfare check won’t stave it off. What do Americans have to do, now? Learn Mandarin?
More than once over the past eight years we have considered our ballooning debt. For the past two years elements of our deep state, agencies of the National Institutes of Health, elected leftists, George Soros’ minions and Communist China, have conspired to hobble capitalism about as rapidly as has ever been done – our hobbling of ourselves not having proceeded as quickly as they’d liked. Brutal lockdowns and debt-defying welfare payments to locked out workers and free-loaders, fearful school closings and now mandated injections of ersatz vaccines or firings – even in the military and emergency domestic personnel – have stripped our workforce and businesses of the people needed to produce our goods and productive surplus. We are broke and rushing to become poorer…, well, except for a few multi-billionaire-global merchants and money manipulators. We have given up the capitalist opportunity society for an oligarchy of wealth and severe stratification into the rakers, the makers, the takers and the fakers.
Even more effectively, we have turned the “vaxxed” into haters of the “unvaxxed,” while formerly trustworthy doctors and hospitals, in thrall to the pharmaceutical manufacturers, have started denying medical care to those who choose to not be injected with mRNA poisons, whose safety and efficacy have been unknown, only now being revealed as neither safe nor effective. Our barely recognizable “government’s” only offering is dissolution of the constitution and further expansion of the debt by another couple of $Trillion. God save us.
It appears that a massive shift in political alignment is in the offing for the mid-term elections, but so what? We are teetering, contemplating a preposterous war1 and swearing at one another. Society is rending itself as it awaits the next free-delivery of goodies and gadgets from Amazon Prime and GrubHub, no longer even bothering to cook for ourselves. We’ve demonized smokers, and glorified tokers. Will changing control of Congress mean a tinker’s dam? What do we expect a powerful new Congress to do?
Will a Republican congress cut the federal budget? Will it use its “power of the purse” to force enforcement of the Constitution and of laws? Will it impeach scurrilous Joe Biden? Will it pursue exposure of the deep state and various collusions and corruptions that seem to have happened? Will it force a complete house-cleaning at the Department of Justice? Will it impeach Merrick Garland on Constitutional grounds? Will it stop raising the debt “ceiling?” Will it undue a host of bad laws and regulations? Will Republicans eliminate clearly racist distinctions in the application of laws? Will it pass a budget? Will it resist any legislation of more than say, 30 or 40 pages in length? Will it prevent the back-door passage of unrelated “wants” that certain Reps or Senators want to attach to true “needs” legislation? Do we think either House will reform itself for the benefit of citizens or in defense of Constitutional rights and freedoms? Given the last 40 or 50 years of congressional history, all these hopes… indeed, ANY of these, seems like a long shot.
We saw, upon the surprise election of both leftist and somewhat questionable Democrat Senators from Georgia, that the Democrat party was poised to push through utterly radical policies. Indeed, their virulent attempts to “reset” American Constitutionality would lead patriots to accept the plausibility of concerted efforts to steal the presidential – and other – elections in 2020, in order to get the “reset” underway. It, the rabid intensity for replacing the American system, seems to not be politics, anymore; it is no longer based on how to best represent the needs of the American people, but rather a mission to undo the last bastion of freedom in favor of a Chinese-led global tyranny.
The question, then, aside from “will we descend into war over Ukraine,” is how radically, how rabidly will the Pelosi-Schumer Democrats breach the bounds of law, custom and ethics to achieve victory in the mid-terms? They have shown, repeatedly, that free and fair elections cannot be depended upon to maintain their majority in either house.
Consequently, given the building expectation of a Republican sweep of the mid-term elections, the threat to a Democrat majority anywhere is also building. Watching the criminality guiding the Biden administration along our southern border, and the willingness of Merrick Garland to abridge the Bill of Rights, the threat to the survival of the United States will likely be experienced in 2022. There is no one to our West who will save democracy for US. We must save and defend it ourselves… right now.
1 There is really only one solution to the Ukraine standoff. With consequences for invasion on the table, the U. S. must reach out to Putin and President Zelensky, not at the same time or place, but close, to commence negotiations. Ukraine deserves respect, but not American blood. Biden or Blinken or one of their apologists must make clear to Zelensky that neither NATO, or an assemblage of European states is going to risk everything to defend Ukraine from the Russian juggernaut. Russia holds the military cards and killing thousands of them and more thousands of Ukrainians is not going to shift that balance materially.
Russia also must be respected, and assuaged. The U. S. must assure Putin in no uncertain terms that war will not ensue over Ukraine IF an acceptable condition of neutrality for Ukraine: neutrality with sovereignty, can be established that is acceptable to Ukraine and Russia. That may involve special trading status between those two nations, and sufficient flexibility for Ukraine to trade elsewhere as well. It will have to recognize the special status of Crimea as a military enclave for the Russian Navy with some rights of veto by Ukraine for other than agreed uses and operations there, perhaps with a 99-year “lease” of the peninsula. It could include a pact within which neither nation would take sides with any 3rd party against the other. It must also recognize the cultural distinctions of ethnic Russians resident in Ukraine, and possible changes in the acceptance of the Russian language within Ukraine.
There is a diplomatic path that the U. S. could broker and cause to be recognized by the European Union and NATO itself, including NATO’s firm rejection of membership by Ukraine and agreement by Ukraine to cease negotiations with or appeals to NATO. The U. S. should agree to recognize the neutrality of Ukraine and to lead the effort to have the rest of the U. N. similarly recognize the new status. Russia must agree to exercise no military provocation or threat to Ukraine and to recognize, unequivocally, its independence, neutrality and sovereignty. It’s possible. All alternatives to this framework are disastrous.
