an Uncensored Mind – Page 36 – Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.

“Government money” and dependency

The government has no money. They get their money from you in the form of taxes. Even money the government collects in taxes from businesses is eventually paid by you via higher prices or lower wages. The government has no savings for a “rainy day” either, and instead currently has a deficit of over $27 trillion dollars (that’s $27,000,000,000,000). This amounts to almost $84,000 owed by every single man, woman and child in the United States. Let that sink in a bit: the average family of five is nearly $420K underwater from the start.

Joe Biden and congressional Democrats, who recently eliminated a House rule requirement that new spending programs must be deficit neutral (translation: they can borrow as much as they want – in your name – to buy your vote), now want to add almost $2 trillion dollars to our deficit – and that’s only the beginning. This first “relief” package (although I don’t feel very relieved) amounts to almost another $6000 borrowed against each and every citizen of the United States. But you’re only going to get $1600 of it.

The rest of the $6000? You mean the remaining $4400 per person that the government is borrowing in your name? Oh, that’s earmarked for important things… yes, important things…. Like the financial bailout of Democrat strongholds whose social policies have resulted in economic disaster, for instance. Oh, and money to keep public union members like firefighters, police, and school teacher paid (yes, even when teachers refuse to work because of COVID and instead go on vacation). Not a government union worker? For you we’re going to increase the minimum wage to $15/hour. But don’t worry; we’re also increasing unemployment benefits for when we’ve priced ourselves out of the labor market and all our jobs go to China.

I know to many of you this all sounds great (f##king morons!). Only we can’t borrow ourselves into prosperity; it simply won’t work. And I know what you’re thinking: it’s OK to for the government to borrow massive amounts of money because each of us believes that we can stick our rich neighbor with the bill. But what about your less well-to-do neighbors; aren’t they thinking the same thing about you? Don’t worry, though; no one expects anyone to repay this money. In fact, the politicians want to borrow even more on your behalf. It’s really all about control – control through government dependence.

Politicians will obtained this control initially by bribing you with “government money”, but later you’ll surrender control willingly when the economy dips and you find yourself in need of their social welfare programs. Once we are fully dependent on the government for our daily alms, then the politicians who have control over these programs will have full control over our lives, our opinions, our voices – and our votes. We will be ruled by a political oligarchy running a command economy, members of a society where basic necessities and jobs will require membership in the ruling party and strict compliance with their doctrine. Say, this is beginning to sound eerily familiar…

Think not? Think again. All that is needed to implement what I have outlined above is control – and there are few better means of control than dependency. But they won’t stop there – they are also working on control of the media so that we are all able to regurgitate the politically correct propaganda of the day. “One of us… one of us…”! Those who don’t agree will be unceremoniously cancelled. Permanently.

If you haven’t already, I’d recommend you read both George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984”, and also his socialist allegory “Animal Farm”. While you’re at it, I’d also recommend Ayn Rand’s classic tale of liberalism run amuck, “Atlas Shrugged”. I think, in the end, you’ll find each of these books to be quite prophetic.

Partisan finger pointing

The truth surrounding this case is a bit different than you might think. Read this overview, then the article below before you decide who is really to blame.

New Charges In Flint Water Crisis, Including Former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder

Now, to be sure, there were definitely problems encountered with the temporary use of the Flint river as a water source for the city. Public and water utility officials very clearly made errors with regard to the testing and treatment requirements of Flint river water, and all of these errors need to be rectified and any damage done corrected. In addition, those responsible should be held accountable for their actions (or failure to act). However, none of this would have happened if a vindictive water supplier for the city did not cancel their contract when Flint announced it would be switching over to a newer, cheaper provider in the foreseeable future.

READ THE OVERVIEW (including it’s associated linked articles), then decide for yourself who should be charged.

A dog with a bone

The 222 Democrat members of the house – each and every one of them – voted to impeach Trump. They did this without any formal evidence presentation or investigation, with a simple up/down vote after only two hours of discussion. They did this while claiming that Trump is a threat to democracy, knowing full well that this action would not result in Trump’s removal from office, for the stated purpose of preventing the President from every again holding office.

The 222 Democrats in the House did this even though many of them have legal training, and many are familiar with the Supreme Court’s landmark free speech case Brandenburg v. Ohio. They each chose to ignore the standard defined by that case and call for impeachment based on President Trump’s comments leading up to the capital riots. They even ignored warnings from legal scholars that not only was the incitement claim unsupported, but that the threat to our democracy and free speech rights from a “snap” impeachment on these grounds might well be substantially greater than the damage caused by the capital riots themselves.

It’s not simply that some people came to a conclusion with which I do not agree. It’s that every single Democrat in the house – all 222 of them – came to the same conclusion, even when given ample arguments both for and against impeachment. It is inconceivable that 222 people could have weighed the evidence and all still came to the same decision, particularly given that even legal scholars cannot agree. It is instead much more likely that they simply voted the party line – which makes their decision a political one. But a political decision to attack the opposition is seldom in the best interest of the people or our country. It is the political nature of their decision with which I take issue.

So who is the greater threat to our democracy? The entire class of Democrat representatives in the House, who have criminalized protected speech for political purposes while also preventing you from exercising your constitutional right to vote for a politician that they despise? Or a President who gave a rousing speech encouraging a lawful, peaceful protest (advise that was ignored) leading to a riotous invasion of the capital – with only 7 days left in his term?

For those who dislike Trump, I get it – he’s an ass. But by allowing Congress to criminalize protected speech just so they can punish a President with whom they disagree after he leaves office – don’t you realize the price you will eventually pay for this act of spite? Considering the liberal-led ongoing attack on free speech – in everything from social media to school book bans – do you really think this action will expand our freedoms, or curtail them?

And as for Pelosi’s stated goal of preventing President Trump from holding office ever again – isn’t that a question for the voters? Is Nancy so afraid that a majority of people would rather have Trump than a Democrat that she will take away the right of the people to vote rather than risk his being re-elected? Isn’t that the true threat to our democracy?

So, I ask again: who’s the greater threat to our democracy?

We need to put this behind us and work towards unifying our country. Nancy Pelosi’s ongoing attack against a president that she despises is only dividing us further, and is clear evidence that Nancy does not have your interests or the interests of the country at heart. She cares for nothing but the political win, and as a result she and her ilk are the driving force dividing our country.

I hope that President-elect Biden has the courage to pardon Trump upon his inauguration as President. Otherwise we risk Nancy Pelosi withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate indefinitely to keep this matter unresolved. Only when Nancy is forced to let go of her “bone”, and this matter dispatched, will we be able to commence healing our divided nation.

Do the right thing, Joe – end Nancy’s vendetta and allow our nation to mend.

Why should we listen to “Borat”?

And how is it possible to save a “democracy” by violating one of its primary tenets – the right to fee speech? Besides, why should we take lessons in democracy from the star of “The Dictator”?

Sacha Baron Cohen Calls on YouTube to ‘Ban Trump Save Democracy’

I know a lot of people dislike Trump, but trashing the constitution to spite Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And the results will be just as ugly.

Me, too, but…

Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? Is the new mantra to be “I disapprove of what you say, and so will use every means within my power to silence you”?

McConnell furious with president, supports move to initiate impeachment proceedings: sources

I’m “done” with Trump, too. I just don’t think that impeachment is anything less than an attempt to silence Trump and his ardent supporters. While you might disagree with Trump’s opinions, beliefs or statements it does not mean that he should be prevented from speaking.

It is far more dangerous to claim a right to silence or punish people for what they say than it is to allow them to be heard. To take such a position makes one much more harmful to liberty and democracy than Trump; it strikes at the heart of our republic and the freedom of speech upon which it was founded.

Of course it’s political

Urging Lawmakers To Act, Rep. Torres Recalls ‘Running For My Life’ During Riot

I particularly like this quote; it’s very “McCarthy-ish“:

Torres argued the resolution on the 25th Amendment is not a “political document” and said, “anyone who says otherwise is being irresponsible and is continuing to advance a hateful agenda of Donald Trump.”

Translation: “If you disagree with us then you’re an irresponsible, hateful Trump supporter, and we’ll punish and silence you just like all the others.”

Well, Ms. Torres, then count me among the ranks of the “irresponsible”, because many of us believe that articles of impeachment or resolutions invoking the 25th Amendment would be nothing more than “political documents”. But good luck silencing me.

The use of the 25th Amendment and/or the impeachment process results in removal, but what’s the point in a removal process that takes longer than the number of days the official has left in office? Also, why start the removal process and then agree to set it aside for the first 100 days of the new administration? Add to this the fact that legal scholars have argued that there’s simply no case for Trump’s removal for “insurrection or excitement”. And yet Nancy Pelosi continues to claim that Trump is is an “imminent threat” to our democracy and so must be removed.

How, at the end of his term, is he a threat to our democracy, Nancy? Is it because he might run again in 2024, and isn’t that exactly what you are trying to prevent? But isn’t that exactly how a democracy works – the people decide, not you? Your seeking to prevent their vote on the subject seems political to me, Ms. Pelosi – as well as an “imminent threat” to our democracy.

The Democrat’s McCarthy-like attempts to silence their opposition by association (re: “anyone who says otherwise is being irresponsible and is continuing to advance a hateful agenda of Donald Trump.”) is reprehensible. Yes, yes… Trump’s an asshole; but silencing every principle for which he and his party stand by demonizing the entire Republican party for the actions of a few – well, that’s like demonizing the Democratic party for supporting the BLM protests that devolved into destructive riots.

Oh – and it is purely political.

May the Farce be with you

Pelosi is intent on impeaching Trump… again. She knows she has no hope whatsoever of actually removing Trump before Biden’s inauguration, but she just doesn’t care. Truth be told, she doesn’t want to remove him; she instead wants Trump to be the only President in history to be impeached twice – even if she will never get a conviction. How do I know? These little tidbits from a recent news article:

The strategy would be to condemn the president’s actions swiftly but delay an impeachment trial in the Senate for 100 days. That would allow President-elect Joe Biden to focus on other priorities as soon as he is inaugurated Jan. 20.
…
Clyburn said that Pelosi “will make the determination as to when is the best time” to send articles of impeachment to the Senate if and when they are passed by the House.
…
The House speaker also asked Democrats for their views on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which deals with the removal of members who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”

Yes, Trump’s an egocentric narcissist. Yes, he’s an asshole. No, he didn’t instigate a riot. His ongoing claims that the election was “stolen” didn’t help the situation, but such statements of opinion do not rise to the level of impeachment or “…insurrection or rebellion…” as asserted by Pelosi. But it doesn’t matter; Trump is really not her end game. She has bigger fish to fry.

Her goal is nothing less than the destruction of the Republican party. She will do this by forcing Republicans to disavow the protestors who rioted, then go on to associate the entire lot (protestors + rioters) with the Republican party as a whole. Never mind that the majority of the protestors were peaceful; no matter that they were protesting for a just cause (a free, fair and transparent election process). The Republicans will have essentially disavowed themselves, and Pelosi will have her “win”.

But in the end, intelligent people (hopefully!) will realize that her actions have nothing to do with what’s best for the American people. Her efforts benefit her and her political cronies, not the the rest of us. If Pelosi and the Democrats were even remotely concerned for the people they serve then they would work instead to heal the political rift that has developed in our country. They would stop this meaningless, pointless charade of a prosecution and ask us all to forgive, forget and move on. But, again, that’s not their goal.

Darth Pelosi: “May this Farce be with you forever.”
Darth Trump: “Yeah, whatever. See you in 2024. I’ll be running as a Democrat.”

Just a thought…

By now we’ve all heard of the ongoing attempts to silence those who support President Trump or oppose the new administration (read more here, here and here). The general claim by those attempting to silence these groups is that they are protecting the world from violent extremists, but I am beginning to question their motives. I am concerned that instead their goal might be the violent rage that inevitably results when people are silenced and oppressed. Could it be that this is the true end purpose of the oppressors? To generate an explosion of hate and violence that necessarily originates from forced seclusion? An eruption of sufficient magnitude that it will allow the silencers to forever paint their opposition – even those members who are non-violent – as unacceptable and thus exclude them from the political process?

I also find it interesting to note that the outrage leading to suppression of opinion has been decidedly one-sided. Where was this outrage and censorship when BLM protests escalated into violent riots, property destruction and looting? Why are those willing to suppress speech painting all conservatives or republicans with the same wide brush, but fail to do the same for those with whom they agree?

It’s just a few thoughts, so no flame wars, please. As always, spirited discussion is encouraged.

The Parler Solution

Parler, the free-speech competitor of Twitter, is due to go down this evening as a result of Amazon’s decision to drop them as a client of their Amazon Web Services (AWS). Amazon’s reasoning: “…a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms.” I’ve discussed the egregious nature of Amazon’s conduct on this matter in another article so I won’t cover it again here. But silencing those with whom you disagree – no matter the level of disagreement or how they express it – is not the answer. In addition, I am particularly concerned when those who are silenced are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from those performing the silencing.

It has always been the goal of political despots to silence their opposition, and when calls for the silencing of some have a one-sided source we are right to question their motives. This is of particular importance when those affecting the silencing are under the thumb of the government. In this case Apple, Google and Amazon are or have been the subject of antitrust investigations. This begs the question: is the silencing an act by private companies, or private companies fearful of their government? Are they acting on their own behalf, or on the behalf of the government in hopes of currying favor in upcoming legal or regulatory actions? Do you all realize the significance of the latter case?

In any event, the suppression of opposition speech is not the answer to the problem of violent online content cited by Amazon. The purpose of free speech is so opposition voices can be heard, thus permitting differing opinions to be tempered by discussion. Yes, we will always have extremists – but they are not kept in check by isolation. They are instead kept in check by popular opinion, by those who offer their own dissenting viewpoint and argue the better position. Attempting to silence the voice of opposition, forcing it into dark alleys and private chat rooms, will only allow it to fester unchallenged.

So what then is the answer to violent speech on social media? It’s the same solution applied to any other violent speech. If the speech in question rises to the level of criminal activity – for instance, if it makes or incites direct threats to people or property, or incites riots in general – then law enforcement should take whatever action is allowed under the law. If the speech is otherwise allowed under the 1st Amendment and the laws of our country then it should be left alone for discussion among the people. Note that it does not matter whether or not you think the speech is appropriate; your opinion does not negate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is the law that determines whether or not a particular level of expression is outside the bounds of protected speech, not your sensibilities.

To implement this solution we only need to identify the speakers so that law enforcement can track down those whose speech violates the law. This identification should be kept private rather than public; people should be allowed to retain their anonymity online. Without such anonymity speech could be suppressed over fear of illegal retaliation or harassment, which cannot be tolerated in a free society (Remember Hitler’s “brownshirts”, who harassed and bullied their opposition into silence?). But social media sites should have true and correct information on their users so that – under court-issued warrant – the speakers can be identified when they break the law. This is already the norm with most social media sites; virtually all have some sort of user authentication process sufficient to identify the user (if not, they could always ask the great overseer, Google, to identify them…). However, all speech that falls under the category of legal should be allowed – whether or not it offends your sensibilities. There is no right under the Constitution or the laws of this nation to not be offended by the thoughts, ideas or speech of others.

It should be up to the law whether or not a particular level of speech is heard. From there it is the people’s decision whether or not to listen. But under no circumstances should the decision with respect to what we hear be left to companies with ulterior or political motives, particularly those who may be acting as pawns on behalf of the government.

Democracy may die in darkness, but liberty perishes in silence.