Deep State Smears Gun Owners

 David Codrea has an important article over at Ammoland.com entitled 'National Security Excuse' Takes War on Guns to Dangerous New Level. To make his point, Codrea uses an opinion piece in Politico to make his point:

“We share Biden’s view that the level of U.S. gun violence is a ‘national embarrassment,’” an April 22 Politico opinion piece declares. “But as National Security Council veterans who have specialized in counterterrorism—with direct experience involving far-right American terrorism, burgeoning jihadism, and Northern Irish extremism in the 1990s—we also see a new threat rising, one that has the potential to change the urgency of the debate: the growing, and heavily armed, American militia movement, which made a show of force on January 6.”

Except that the so called January 6 "Insurrection" was not heavily armed, was not a product of the American militia movement, was not a show of force. It was, rather, a peaceful protest to request (is that still allowed?) our Congressional leaders to at least look at the evidence that the election was stolen. That our Congress, which now hides behind a barbed wire barrier patrolled by armed troops failed us is disgusting. That our Supreme Court failed us is yet another betrayal and slap to the face of American voters. But who are these deep state conspirators to be writing this male bovine exrament?

But, our so called experts aren't through making stuff up:

“Increasingly, as militias acquire and stockpile weapons, they’re turning guns from a public-health concern into a threat to national security,” the wonks offer, relying on their readership believing widely-spread “gunquack” hysteria that there actually is a public health crisis. There’s not.

What they’re doing here is an old trick probably best described by novelist Thomas Pynchon:

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

“These groups, with transnational ties, also enjoy easy access to high-power, high-capacity, small-caliber semiautomatic weapons—many of which can be converted to fully automatic,” Simon and Stevenson hyperventilate:

“The concern isn’t that these weapons will somehow enable militias to challenge the U.S. military on the battlefield, which they certainly will not. It is that they make mass casualty attacks against political or cultural adversaries both easy to carry out, and easy to frame as inspirational events of the kind that mobilize insurrection.”

For being such sought-after foreign policy subject matter experts, they must not have heard of Afghanistan. Either that or it’s no wonder this country continues to find itself neck-deep in interminable foreign entanglements with desk-bound eggheads like these doing the advising. And you’d think by now at least one of the millions of NRA members would have carried out one of those “mass casualty attack” rampages they want everyone to fear (instead of being prepared to survive).

What they’re doing here is a naked, political smear job, journalistic malpractice based on lies, libel, and hate. They’re equating patriotic Americans intent on preserving the rule of law, not of men, with lawless, mass-murdering terrorists. Here’s a hint: Those who believe in the Second Amendment believe in the whole Bill of Rights and in due process. Based on their actions, indiscriminate killers, like the evil maniac who slaughtered defenseless people in New Zealand, do not, and their genocidal collectivist bent is more in line with the track record of Simon and Stevenson’s Team Totalitarian.

Please go read the rest of Codrea's article. He is a compelling writer, and we are fortunate that he decided to write about gun rights.

The People Stuck in Burning Cities Would Rather Have Law and Order. Wouldn't You?

Kurt Schlichter over at Townhall.com has an article where he asks Should We Just Let It Burn?. Because, as he points out, once they start trying to burn suburban enclaves, suddenly law enforcement will become important again.

My town’s not getting burned down because the rich coastal liberals with “Hate Has No Home Here” signs on their exquisitely landscaped front yards will never put up with that nonsense here in Shangri-Lib. In a very real way, the chaos that the liberals are creating by handcuffing other people’s cops – do you think my cops will ever get the order to stand down? – is not my problem. And, unless you are still living in some Democrat hellhole, it’s probably not your problem either.

So, why again when some big blue city that hasn’t had a Republican mayor since phrenology was the pseudo-science of the day – as quackery goes, head bump interpretation is way less damaging than weather paranoia and flu panic – suffers self-induced ritualized convulsions upon the death of yet another felon should the rest of us care?

But of course, we do care. When one of us is hurting, we are all diminished. But our solution is not to burn, loot and murder, nor is it to defund the police. While it may be that some police officers behave poorly, the majority of the police in fact do the right thing most of the time.

We haven't always had police in the United States, or for that matter anywhere. The first police department in the U.S. was in Boston in 1838. That was followed in 1845 by the Albany, NY police department. Before that, you had county sheriffs, and Federal Marshals. But for the most part, people settled differences themselves. Sheriffs would occasionally gather a posse to go after felons, but that left most people to settle things themselves. And if people couldn't settle their differences peacefully, they settled them by the feud. The Hatfields and McCoys is illustrative of what results. The feud between these families was not justice, but a series of acts of revenge. To have something approaching justice, we need the police.

As Schlichter points out, where the bullies are burning, looting, and murdering, the locals want to see the police doing their duty.

So, even though we do want to help – for now, because eventually there will come a point where non-blue city dwellers just shrug and say, “You’re on your own” – it’s not really clear what we can do gently. About 29 years ago this week, a bunch of soldiers and I tried to make Los Angeles safe again for a few weeks when we deployed in the Rodney King riots. It was quite an interesting time for a suburban guy who never ventured into the tougher parts of South-Central to be rumbling through it with an M16A1 rifle and a basic load of ammo. I got an up-close look at the reality of liberal misrule, though it was largely obscured by flames.

The people of the inner city loved us. They did not dig the LAPD, but they loved the Guards' citizen-soldiers, particular because many of our troops – my unit was 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry based in smoldering Inglewood, for people who know the geography – were from the affected neighborhoods. And they took no guff. Many carried their own weapons and (allegedly) engaged in firefights with gang members with their own pieces so they did not have to account for spent Army rounds. The official combat tally was low. A Salvadorean drug dealer got his head blown off trying to run down some guardsmen at a road block – legend has it that the investigation consisted of some LAPD detectives rolling up, asking what happened, saying “Oh, okay,” then driving away. Also, rumor has it that a fleeing rapist got free gender reassignment surgery with a 5.56mm round. At other times, so it has been said, the guardsmen just beat the crap out of gangsters, who learned not to screw with the Army guys.

And why wouldn't the have loved to have someone on the streets putting down the burning, looting, and murder. The media pretend as if the gangsters and drug dealers are these peoples' friends. The are not. Instead, the gangsters and drug dealers prey on the people living in the inner cities. BLM and the race hustlers do not actually speak for the people living in the inner city. We watch the news and see angry black faces telling us that the police are unfair. But what we don't realize is that the media hunt these people down for an interview. We almost never see the real victims of the drug dealers and gangsters, who are held up as some sort of Robin Hood. But even Robin Hood wasn't Robin Hood.

Over time, we have developed a system that generally works in terms of delivering justice.  The police investigate crimes.  The District Attorneys prosecute the crimes.  The courts act as referees between the DA and the Defense, to which anyone accused has a right.  The courts try cases and where the accused is found guilty, mete out punishment.  When each of these institutions act with even a modicum of faithfulness to finding the truth, as much justice as you can have in this world is the result.

No one thinks this system delivers perfect justice.  But what are is the Left proposing to replace it?  Sending unarmed social workers to handle domestic disputes?  These are some of the most dangerous situations police encounter.  What sort of fool would go into such a situation unarmed?  And it is not like we don't already have programs designed to reduce gang violence.  How successful are these programs?  Have they gotten rid of gangs or reduced gang activity?  No?

So, there is an answer to the violence. It’s called law and order. In extreme cases, like riots, it consists of massive, overwhelming force. But that’s a choice too, and one our gutless elite is not willing to make. They’d rather let the body count rise. They could end the murder spike tomorrow by backing the cops and dumping the leftist-bought prosecutors for real DAs. They could shut down riots and gangs and drug houses by simply shutting them down.

But, getting back to the original question, should we let the blue cities burn? As Schlichter says, we have no choice. As long as the people in charge of these cities can tolerate them burning, and they can tolerate a lot, they will contine to burn. But don't believe what the media is pushing. The people stuck in these cities would rather see law and order. Wouldn't you?

Mark Robinson Testifies Before Congress

Mark Robinson strikes again, hehe.  I live this guy. Every time he speaks, out comes unabashed conservatism. And he won't back down. He shouldn't back down because he is correct. Democrats insult blacks when they claim that blacks can not obtain an ID. If Democrats had a sense of shame...but they don't.

For those who do not know, Robinson is the Leutenant Governor of North Carolina. He was elected at the last election, and now heads the North Carolina Republican Party. I expect great things from him.

We Have Been Here Before

 Have you ever wondered how so many successful people, "Captains of Industry," "Masters of the Universe," seem to be Leftists?  Haven't all of these people made their vast wealth through our Capitalist system?  Doesn't their power and influence come from the wealth they wield?  If so, then aren't they cutting their own throats?  It has been a puzzle.  Obviously, I was missing something.

Yesterday, at The Epoch Times Jean Chen has an article entitled

A Mom's Research (Part 4): Why Are Many Elites Leftists? I dug into the article, trying to figure these very intelligent, and nominally very educated, people to none the less see the World through a Leftist lens?

After reading quite a few insightful books, I learned that what is happening now is nothing new. Since the late 19th century, Western elites have been fascinated with communism and have supported its cause. In the pursuit of utopian ideals, traditional values have been trashed, America has been brought to the brink of socialism, and hundreds of millions of people around the world have been thrown to the bloodthirsty communist beast.

...snip...

With the rapid development of science and technology since the 18th century, people started to drift away from belief in God, and believe that humans can take care of everything. With certain arrangements or planning, some people thought, humankind could get rid of all their sufferings and build a paradise on earth. Different socialist and communist thoughts mushroomed.

According to the 1966 book “Tragedy and Hope” by Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, an Oxford professor named John Ruskin started to instill socialist thoughts into his students in 1870. After graduation, these students entered high societies in the U.K. and its colonies, spreading Ruskin’s thoughts far and wide.

Meanwhile, in the United States, a man named Richard Ely was hired as a professor and director of the Department of Political Economy of John Hopkins University in 1881. He was trained in Germany and was enthusiastic about the welfare state idea. According to financial researcher Stephen Soukup’s book “The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business,” Ely’s thoughts would change the American politics dramatically, especially through his disciple Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President.

By the early 20th century, socialist ideas had conquered the mind of those at the top of the financial, industrial, academic, and political realms. The elites never see communism as an enemy due to similar utopian obsessions. Instead, communist radicals were considered a force they could harness, like a wrecking ball, on their way to tear down old structures and build a new world.

The bolded part is in fact the center of the whole article. We decided we didn't need God, that we could do everything ourselves. Rudyard Kipling captured the same thing in his poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings. This is the very definition of sin, to believe that we are gods.

I urge gentle readers to read the entire article when you have time. It is long, but well worth it. And I know I have referenced Kiplings poem before, but you should read it again too. Chen is right that we have been here before.

Where to get the Straight News

wish I had had this article when I was starting out on my conservative journey. Ted Noel at the American Thinker today has an excellent article pointing readers Where to get Straight News. Back then the only news aggregator was the Drudge Report. Drudge was never a "conservative" site. He included both conservative and leftist writers, not to mention those that we decidedly middle of the road. It was where I discovered such luminaries as the great Thomas Sowell and Jonah Goldberg. Sowell has since retired.

I have implimented a number of the solutions Noel mentions, such as using Duck Duck Go as a search engine. Besides getting straighter news, it avoids feeding the beast. I have a Proton mail account, which I use sparingly for communications I want kept private. Others I have yet to implement in my life, but I will be looking into them.

Our Politicians and even our Judges are failing us.

 Well, well, well.  The SCOTUS has taken up the first Landmark Second Amendment Case, as reported by Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com. It remains to be seen whether the Court will, in fact, support the Constitution or put another nail in the coffin. I don't put a lot of faith in what has become just another feckless institution that undermines the rights of the people. But you can go read report.

Meanwhile, also at Townhall.com, Kurt Schlichter has an article entitled A Rigged System Can't Last. Here is Schlicter:

You can’t win, but that’s all part of the plan.

Reason, rules, processes – these are the foundations of a free society, which is why the cultural left is so dead set against them. A citizen needs to be able to rely on clear rules and fixed processes to vindicate his rights in order to have any rights. But the rights of free citizens – your rights – are an obstacle to the Lil’ Stalins who yearn to rule over us. If the liberal establishment can create a society where you can’t appeal to facts, evidence, or law, then – until the peasants' revolt – its poobahs can wield undisputed, undiluted authority. That’s their dream, a country where you live in terror of them because you can never be sure that what you are doing or failing to do is suddenly going to be criminalized.

Schlichter cites the case of the black teen who was shot by a Columbus police officer to prevent that woman from stabbing another. As he points out, the cop executed the correct action. But none of that matters.

See the problem? If you can’t rely on the law or the evidence, then you are at the mercy of the whims of the liberal elite. Sure, the cop did the right thing, and the evidence is indisputable that he did the right thing, but it doesn’t matter at all. The cop is wrong and subject to all sorts of sanctions not because he violated any rule but purely because it is useful for him to be guilty of something.

The Rule of Law has become the Rule of Power, which the bad guys possess for the moment. And they are so arrogant about it that they do not even bother to make a straight-faced argument against cops saving black children’s lives. Hey, it’s just a routine kid knife fight – no biggie. We all remember back in the day, hacking up other suburban teens with machetes and scimitars, and how the cops never bothered us. Not allowing black teens to be gutted is worse than Jim Crow – it’s Jim Eagle. Heck, it’s Jim Rodan.

And we all know if that punk planted a shiv in the other girl’s gut on the bodycam tape, the cop would be lynched for not stopping her. You can’t win, which is the idea.

Of course, the incident became viral because it was a white cop who shot a (not so innocent) black youth. In contrast the many shootings, stabbings and general mayhem of black on black crime never makes national news. And the Courts contribute to this madness. Is there nothing we can do?

Why the District of Columbia Should Not Be a State

The Epoch Times provides a great service to readers by providing a brief history of the District of Columbia by Rob Natelson at Why the District of Columbia Should Not Be A State. Natelson provides historical data, of which the Founders were aware, as well as Constitutional objections, some of which would require a Constitutional amendment. Then there is the Maryland law that granted the district to the Federal government. That law did not anticipate that the district would be turned into a State, thus potentially diluting the power of Maryland.

Please go read the article at Epoch Times.

Author: Most Mass Shooters Are 'Dad Deprived Males'

The Epoch Times has an article today entitled Most Mass Shooters 'Dad Deprived Males,' Author Warren Farrell that claims that some 98% of mass shooters are 'dad deprived males' who are deeply hurt and aim to hurt as many others as they can.

Key commonalities for most mass shooters in the United States are that they are male and that they lack a father figure in their lives, author Warren Farrell says.

“There’s common denominators among mass shooters, the most obvious is that they’re male—98 percent are male. A second common denominator is that they’re almost all dad-deprived males,” Farrell told The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders.”

People who carry out mass shootings at schools in particular tend to be boys who are suicidal, depressed, and dad-deprived.

The authors Zachary Stieber and Jan Jekielek, point to a more effective way to reduce the incidence of mass shootings that attempting to ban various classes of firearms. Once again we can see the wisdom of God, and the selfishness of mankind. Men and women place their own happiness above that of their children create boys who might become mass shooters.

'Ethics' And Abortion

 Katie Yoder has an article today at Townhall.com that points out the flaws in the supposed ethical arguments in favor of abortion. You can find Yoder's article at Solon Piece Says 'Pro-Choice Ethics' Prove Abortion Isn't Murder. And of course, with mention of "Pro-Choice Ethics,' it took a while to get me to stop laughing before I could manipulate the mouse to click on the article. But when I clicked, realized "'Pro-Choice Ethics' was in scare quotes because what passes for pro-choice ethics is utter nonsense.  The authors of the Salon article use examples that compare apples to oranges and comes up with lasagna.

You will want to read both Yoder's article, and the Salon article she references. Yoder's article touches on, but does not specifically mention that the arguments against abortion are specifically religious. Absent the 6th Commandment telling us "Thou shalt not murder," is there an ethical argument against murder? On what basis do you make such arguments? For instance, one might make the case that sacrificing one life to save many makes the murder of that one person somehow acceptable. Christians will recognize that such an argument is wrong on its face because of the 6th Commandment. We are not permitted to make such judgements, only our Creator has that right.  From that we deduce that each individual life is precious to God.  But a secular ethicist with no absolutes like not killing innocent people, will be able to justify killing others for any number of reasons.

Indeed, historically, abortion was both legal and routinely practice outside of Israelite society. It was only when Christianity began spreading more widely throughout the world that abortion became less and less acceptable, and laws against it appeared. But as our nation has become more secular, less religious, the idea of sacrificing children on the alter of their parents convenience has come back as well. It is not something to be proud of; indeed we should feel guilty and ashamed.

There is something else that we should be worried about here.  And that is that to the degree that 'ethics,' as a field of study, is divorced from Biblical truth, it is highly suspect.  The ethics postulated by the ethicist depends entirely on his individual philosophy of right and wrong, or morality.  But the truth is there are not 7 billion ideas of right and wrong on earth.  There is one, the one commanded by our Lord and Savior.

Are We Ignorant Rubes, or Justifiably Cautious?

 I obviously do not get my news from MSNBC, nor increasingly from CNN.  But I don't get a lot of it from Fox News either.  No, I get most of it by reading. You can see a lot of the stuff I read by looking over to the left side bar. But even that isn't all I read. I am a voracious reader of many sites, some conservative, some scientific, and a few general interest. Which brings me to a post at The Federalist today by John Daniel Davidson entitled Vaccine Hesitant Americans Aren't Ignorant Rubes, They're Understandably Cautious.

After reading articles and interviews with, among others, Dr. Michael Yeadon, America's Front Line Doctors, Dr. Scott Atlas, and of course, while not a doctor, Scott Morefield has been on the case against masks, enough evidence has been built up surrounding the vaccine to make it reasonable to take a wait and see attitude. As Davidson rightly points out, the Covid-19 disease has a survivability rate, even at my age, of 99.5%. Given that I am in reasonably good health, I have made the calculation to wait for more data. I can always take the vaccine later, and not have to stand in line. Again, go read the whole article.

And then, there is the question of why the vaccine is being pushed so hard.  Anyone who exhibits a little hesitancy is shamed, denounced, and subtly threatened.  Why?  What is in it for businesses, corporations, for government to force me into taking an experimental vaccine?  Unfortunately, I can not follow the money, but I can not help but be suspicious of what I might find.  And then there is the Gates Foundation.  Talk about creepy... 

Some years ago, I took up one of these "free" vacation offers at a resort.  The only catch was that I had to sit though a sales pitch for purchasing a time share.  Now, the salesman presented all kinds of promises.  We could vacation every year at numerous chic vacation spots.  It all sounded wonderful.  But I was hesitant, needing to use my money for more concrete items at the time.  The salesman wouldn't give up though.  He kept brow beating me and telling me that this was a good investment for me.  Really?  I have never regretted not buying that timeshare.  Today, people are paying people to get them out of time shares.  

The Constitution Was Written For A Moral People

 Watching Tucker Carlson Tonight, I came across a piece of an interview on his pay channel at Fox Nation with a guy named Glenn Ellmers.  As Tucker likes to say, it was so smart.  I went searching for him, and found him at the Claremont Institute It turns out that the Claremont Institute itself is a pretty smart think tank.

What I found interesting was Ellmers' idea that conservatism is dead. There is nothing left to conserve. I have often written that I consider myself a Constitutional conservative politically. But once one faces the fact that there is nothing left to conserve, one also has to face the fact that the Constitution is dead too. Indeed, the Democrats have been killing it at least since Woodrow Wilson. But the New Deal, the Great Society, and other programs have steadily shredded the Constitution, to the point that the Supreme Court has become a joke. What Ellmers talked about with Tucker Carlson that we need be Counter Revolutionaries. Wow. And so true.

You can read Ellmers' article at "Conservatism" is no longer enough . He writes about the fact that the people on the Left, which includes many Democrats, are no longer American in any meaningful sense of the word. He writes about the need to be counter revolutionaries in mind set. He talks about the fact that the U. S. Constitution no longer works. But as James Madison noted, our Constitution was written for a moral people. We are no longer that.

Please go read Ellmers' article, and while you are there, check out other writers at Claremont.

Have you read it? Good. Let me offer a few ideas. I noted Madison's caution above. 20 years ago, I thought we would devolve to a civil war. I no longer think it will be a "hot" war, though there may be skirmishes. The Democrats have learned at least that lesson that if they shoot first, it does not go well for them. That does not mean that you can simply give up your weapons. You can not. But they will not be a factor in this. Rather, we need to become again a "moral people." The fight is going to be on cultural issues such as abortion, or education...pick one and persue it.

Democrats Burning America To Preserve Racism

 Most people, including Republicans themselves, seem not to know the history of their own party. The Republican party was founded in a Wisconsin school house in 1854 specifically as an abolitionist, or anti-slavery party. Just as now, the Democrats voted in lockstep and managed through skull duggery and creative use of the rules, to keep slavery alive in the United States. Our first President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in 1860, and led to the slave states seceding and shortly the Civil War.

Andrea Widburg, over at the American Thinker has a post that claims that We are witnessing the Demorats' final revenge for losing the Civil War. She makes a compelling case.

The British brought African slavery to American shores. The Democrats elevated slavery to a sacrament and fired the first shots in the Civil War to defend it. When the Democrats lost the Civil War, they initiated Jim Crow laws to marginalize Blacks. Despite this, Black Americans prospered, until the Democrats unleashed the mightiest weapon of all: Killing them with “kindness.” We’re seeing the results of that play out across America.

In Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio brought Katherine the shrew to heel by abusing her ferociously while calling it love. Eventually, the cognitive dissonance broke her, and she became the wealthy, subordinate woman of Petruchio’s dreams.

Democrats, apparently, have studied their Shakespeare. Since the start of LBJ’s “Great Society” and the welfare state, Democrats have been breaking American Blacks in the same way Petruchio broke Katherine. If one were to pay attention solely to the rhetoric, there can be no greater love than that which leftists in politics, the media, academia, and the corporate world have for Blacks. The results of this abundant affection have been devastating.

While a great many whites were caught up in Johnson's "great society," the truth is that these laws were aimed at blacks. Dad was replaced by Uncle Sugar as the family bread winner. Every child needs both a father and a mother to model proper behavior of both. But boys are especially harmed because of the lack of a male role model. They often join gangs as a way to find that sort of role model. But gangs model criminal behavior, show little reqard for life, do not promote religion, and otherwise turn these boys into criminals. LBJ's "Great Society" has destroyed the nuclear black family, not so called white supremacists.

“Hands up, don’t shoot.” “I can’t breathe.” “I’m a crazy white lady screaming at cops on behalf of Black people.” “Math is racist.” “Ambition is racist.” “The English language is racist.” “Whites are born racist.” “Melanin makes people superior.” (That last is a paraphrase of Kristen Clarke, Biden’s nominee to head the equal rights division of the Justice Department.) Lower academic standards. Separate dorms. Separate dining halls. Critical Race Theory. White Privilege. Ibram X. Kendi bestsellers. BLM. Defund the police. ACAB. It’s all so gosh-darn loving.

Widburg is correct. Even Democrats once upon a time recognized it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat made much the same points at the time. But the Democrats have always been the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of the KKK. As Patricia McCarthy notes also at the American Thinker:

The left now has a principal tactic for winning and keeping power: indicting this nation's founding, its legacy of slavery, and all people not "of color" for "systemic racism." It's a ridiculous charge, given the fact that nearly 700,000 lives were lost to freeing the slaves and that it was the Democrats that fought freeing the slaves so hard that even after losing the Civil War, they put Jim Crow laws into place.

Remember that the KKK was the military arm of the Democrat party. The Democrats have been the party of racism from the beginning. It was the pernicious slave system that led to the founding of the Republican Party, and its first president, Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was the Democrats who opposed integration in the 1950s and early 1960s. Joe Biden was one of the Democrats who was the most overtly racist for most of his career. Chances are he still is. His administration is dedicated to the notion that (1) blacks cannot navigate the process of attaining legitimate identification and (2) they are and will always remain victims of white people. Talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!

The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution were written by men steeped in centuries of Christian thought.  They have always looked upon these documents with jaundiced eye, because they do not allow them to do what they want most.  I would note too that, as Christians, making the color of your skin your defining characteristic, and by extension, that of others, is a sin. Making you sexuality, your gender, or anything other than being a child of the Living God is a sin. Let us get back to Martin Luther King's test of judging a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

How Do The Democrats Plan to Take Our Guns?

Bob Barr has some questions to ask gun grabbers over at Full Mag News. The article, entitled Will Molon Labe Become More Than An Ancient Greek Slogan?

Barr wants to know, in light of the Democrats apparent determination to violate the Constitution:

So, what will Democrats do?

The mass refusal to accept Democrats’ gun bans, confiscations, or buybacks is so likely it can no longer be considered a theoretical question to be brushed aside. Voters have a right to know just what Democrats have in store for them; whether it is jail time if caught with a banned firearm in their home, or something more extreme like armed SWAT teams crashing through their doors in the dead of night.

Furthermore, how will Democrats determine who owns what guns? Will they leverage concealed-carry records, unlawfully access NICS background check records, implement enhanced domestic surveillance, or employ paid snitches? Precisely how far down the road of un-American policies will they elect to travel?

I'd like to know the answers to those questions and more as well. Oh, and since the Supremes seem to have been cowed into submission, I don't expect them to defend the Constitution. It will be up to us.

In the World we find ourselves in, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

 I have mentioned that the Left are the masters of coining terms that turn reality on its head.  They do this to make their outlandish proposals seem somehow reasonable.  Take the term "Pro-choice" for example.  What reasonable person can possibly be against choice.    For many things, the more choices we have, the better, right?  But what if someone claims the choice to murder another person?  Do we say the person is pro-choice, or do we indict that person for murder?  Yet that is what so called pro-choice is in reality.  It is murdering our own children.  Not so pretty, is it?

Over at The Federalist Elle Reynolds has a piece explaining that here are 10 Politically Correct, but Factually False Words and Phrases to Stop Using Immediately.

Politicians and dishonest media propagandists today use inaccurate language to frame narratives and foster a leftist perspective. Inadvertently, even well-meaning audiences sometimes internalize this language and end up propagating the very ideas and framing they fundamentally reject. Don’t let that be you.

In every debate, it’s vital to start by defining your terms. If conservatives want to counter the radical left’s agenda, we have to begin by using words that accurately reflect what we mean — not words that actively mean the opposite. Here are just 10.

Go ahead and read the ten words and phrases. I would add that words like "could," "might," and "may" are used to bring unlikely catastrophic outcomes to discussions of things like global cooling...er...warming...er...climate change. Sure, the temperature could rise to astronomical levels. It could send us into snowball Earth. But do you really have time to worry about events that have vanishingly small chances of happening? In fact, what those who propose such theories are doing is distracting you from what the politicians are actually doing, which is what you should be paying attention to.

The other thing I wanted to discuss here is the use of the "narrative." A narrative is a devise, or tool used to advance a story line. A narrative can be true or false, but in constructing a narrative, certain facts must be left out, and other facts highlighted. But here is the problem with using a narrative as a framework in journalism. If they are constantly trying to fit the facts to the narrative, as seems the case, the existence of relevant facts that fall outside of the narrative becomes very important.  These "left out" facts could change the narrative.  And this appears to be the case today. Journalist should construct the narrative from the facts...all the facts...and not try to fit the facts to serve a narrative. The real world is a messy place, and we are better served by being presented with the facts, and letting us construct our own narratives.

In today's world, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Is the Supreme Court signaling that America has crossed the Rubicon?

 At the American Thinker today, Clfford C. Nichols has an article entitled Supreme Court's failures are putting on a path to tyranny. He points out that the Supreme Court's failure to even look at the evidence of the stolen presidential election is inexplicable. The Court seems to either be thoroughly intimidated by the Democrats, or they have jumped on the fascist train coming down the track. Is there any other reason for them shirking their duty? Serious question. I can't think of one. And the idea that they have thrown in with the fascists is terrifying.

Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation's demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture's destruction has been rendered incurable. Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action...but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others. Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Why would they not do this?

Even if the members of the Court found President Trump's personal style distasteful, that should not affect their desire to correct obvious election fraud. Perhaps they believe that this was a one off, never to happen again. But that is too naïve. The Justices should realize that if there are no consequences, it will be too tempting for the Dems to do it again and again. But more than that, Americans have a right to know if, for example, Sidney Powell's assertions have any basis in fact:

Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham. Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell:

"The Supreme Court's failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption. It is an absolute tragedy for the rule of law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world."

She is not overstating the matter in the least. An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the rule of law can be headed in only one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship limited only by the whims of those in power — i.e., a tyranny.

Nichols asks if America has already passed the Rubicon? If so, is the Court signalling that they can not do anything to prevent the destruction of the Republic. Are they simply attempting to save their own hides, and those of their families? The Dems certainly seem to have the Court boxed in.

More Evidence Masks Don't Work

Please go read an article by a Stanford University doctor entitled Facemasks In The Covid-19 Era: A Medical Hypothesis. The study is a meta-analysis of other studies. Never the less, it is interesting in that it finds that masks are ineffective at preventing human-to-human transmission of the virus. At the same time, masks present harms to both breathing and psychological harms.

This is yet one more study undermining mask mandates. Yet they continue. This is deliberate ignorance. I have even had someone who supposedly trained as a microbiologist that masks are effective because they contain the droplets. But of course, the virus is spread not by cough droplets, but by normal aerosols. Every time we breath out, we are also, if we have the disease, breathing out virus bodies. And viruses are so small, that they easily pass through the holes in a mask.

So, Covid-19 Was By Our Own Government?

Here is a video at the American Partisan entitled Proof of US Role in Chinese Bioweapon Research. In the video, Dr. Richard M. Fleming, MD, JD presents the documents that follow the money and implicate Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, Dr. Shi Zengli, and others. Furthermore, Dr. Fleming makes a case that the Sars-Cov2 (Covid=19) was engineered under Gain of Function research, or in fact a bioweapn. And it is a bioweapon that has killed 500,000 Americans...so far. Then there are the vaccines. The so-called vaccines do not actually prevent getting Covid again, do not in fact do much of anything. And that begs the question, why are they being pushed? While the Federal government has no authority to require a person to take the vaccine, the media certainly want you to think you must. One co-worker asked why another co-worker hadn't taken the vaccine. She had a good answer. But the question implied that any thinking person should want it.

Finally, there is the issue of vaccine passports. No one, neither businesses nor the Fed itself should demand a vaccine passport. It actually would be illegal under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (Privacy Rule). A vaccine passport would require people to reveal certain health information to which they are not entitled. And once such passports become accepted, other things will be added. Essentially, they will track you wherever you go. They will be able to add something called a Social Credit Score (SCS)(like China already does) that determine if you can purchase food, work at a job, or pretty much anything. You are completely controlled. Oh, and under such a system, anybody can accuse you and lower you SCS. Mention that you have doubts about the vaccine to the wrong person? Your rice allowance is cut in half. Nice, huh.

Fleming also brings up the Nuremberg Trials, and he asks the question whether the people involved, who may have broken U.S. laws, should be tried under Nuremberg rules. Under the current regime, I doubt it will happen.

The Covid-19 Vaccines Offend the "Smell Test"

 Patricia McCarthy has an article over at the American Thinker entitled Vaccine Resistance and Covid Fear Within Families that points out the generational differences between grandparents, parents, and children as a result of their varying take on Covid-19. In an especially well researched article, points out that older people were still taught the skill of "critical thinking" which involved asking questions and evaluating the answers, which lead to yet more questions. Take nothing at face value, and check everything. As President Reagan quipped, "In God We Trust, all others must be verified." 

It would be funny if the stakes were not so high, but political differences within families seem to fall along the same lines as party differences. Who could have predicted that all those Trump haters who swore they would never submit to a vaccine that President Trump had brought to market with Operation Warp Speed are those who now are lining up like bleating sheep to get vaccines that are experimental? Or that millions of those who support the former President are much more likely to be wary of the four vaccines now available?

All one has to do is visit the websites of the vaccine manufacturers themselves to discover that those big pharma companies do not claim that their jabs can prevent Covid or its transmission. They claim only that they may reduce the severity of symptoms. And as the number of serious adverse reactions and even deaths by vaccine mount, those who have succumbed to the media fearmongering and Biden administration heavy-handed promotion still ignore the many, many obvious factors that mitigate against all four of the vaccines, all of which may have serious consequences down the road when other viruses come along.

Those of us of a certain age are perhaps more likely to research the vaccines than younger generations, and conservatives are certainly more likely to be suspicious of anything the government pushes so aggressively, especially when tried and true, inexpensive and effective treatment is available.

By now, there is ample contervailing evidence that skepticism of the vaccines is, if not warranted, at least should be considered. The MSM routinely lies, pushing a narrative instead of just telling us the truth. A "narrative" is a tool of story telling, of fiction. That should have the hairs on the back of your neck standing up. Journalists should not be constructing a "narrative." Then, there is evidence that the World Health Organization (WHO) has lied to us. There is also evidence that Dr. Fauci funded the laboratory in Wuhan to do what is termed "Gain of Function" research on viruses, which is illegal in the United States. There is evidence that Bill Gates is involved with the WHO in a scheme to vaccinate people in Africa against polio. Sounds great until you realize that polio had disappeared from Africa. And Gates is known as a depopulation proponent.  Couple this with what Dr. Michael Yeadon says about the uses of the technology utilized for these experimental vaccines should shock you.

Now, none of these things is proof. But they do raise questions, and cause one to do even more research. Meanwhile, the death rate from Covid overall is 99.8%, which children essentially being immune, while people over 70 have progressively higher death rates. But even so, the statistics are in your favor. So why the constant fear porn on the nightly television news? I had a boss at NAVFACENGCOM who constantly urged us to employ the "smell test." If something didn't smell right, it probably wasn't. Well, this situation doesn't smell right.

Now, I am not an expert. What I have is critical thinking skills and an active smell tester. These urge caution.

Before We Go Down That Road...

 I have been one who is both hesitant to take the vaccine because of the mixed messages being sent by the government, and skeptical of the need to take such a vaccine for a virus that has such a high survival rate.  I typically get dismissed, or looked at as if I am crazy.  But if you listen to Dr. Anthony Fauci's pronouncements on the virus and vaccines enough, one notices that they don't make sense.  On the other hand, people like Dr. Scott Atlas or Dr. Marty Makery present countervailing information that fits with what we know about the behavior of viruses and our immune response.

So, here is what I mean by mixed messages.  Supposedly the virus can be stopped by masks.  Yet the virus itself is so small, that as Scott Morefield has analogized it, stopping the virus with a mask is like stopping a mosquito from biting you by building a chain link fence.  It is actually worse than that.  You can view bacteria with a regular microscope.  But viruses can only be seen with an electron microscope.  Masks as it turns out are like magic talismans that people carry for good luck, like a rabbit's foot.  Then there is the idea that even after you have been vaccinated you still have to hide in your house, and wear a mask, because one can still catch the virus, can still spread the disease among others, who have been vaccinated.  But this leads us right back to where we started.  Which if one thinks too much about it, causes one to ask why?  When do we get back to "normal?"

Dr. Michael Yeadon is "Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field..." He was interviewed by Life Site News on his concerns about the response of the World's governments to the virus, and the development of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The interview can be found at Former Pfizer VP: 'Your government is lying to you in ways that could lead to your death'. And if history is any guide, the things he is saying are not that far fetched.

Now, unlike Dr. Scott Atlas, who can be dismissed because he doesn't have direct experience as a virologist, Yeadon has 32 years of such experience. But he makes the same points: masks are useless, lockdowns are a mistake that both destroys the economy and spreads the virus faster. But the real interesting parts are his thoughts on vaccines and human immunity.

His main points included:

1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”

2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.

3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.

4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”

5. Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”

6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.

7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”

It's a long interview, but Yeadon is anything but a "boring guy." In fact he is pretty interesting. I hope you will read the whole thing. Even if you are one who tends to dismiss what he says because you just can not believe it, it is a worthwhile read. And even if you are quite sure that Uncle Joe Biden could never, can you believe it of, say, Klaus Schuab? AOC? What about Adam Schiff? It is better to just head it off before it gets started.

What Does the Lack of Serious Leaders Say About Us?

 Yesterday I had a guitar lesson with my music teacher, who, while an excellent teacher, is also a left wing Democrat.  I knew that he was one who had watched exclusively the MSM, CNN and MSNBC, and so he was one who was absolutely terrified of the Chinese virus.  So, I ask him each time we start a lesson whether he has gotten a shot yet.  He finally reported several weeks ago that he had had the first shot.  Yesterday, he reported that he had now had his second shot.  I was happy for him.  Then he asked if I had had a shot, to which I reported that I was hesitant to take one, given the mixed messages being sent by the government.  At this, he stated that I must believe all the "Republican conspiracy theories."  At the time I said I did not know whereof he spoke.

But, on reflection, which I did not have time to do at the time, the problem of conspiracy theories being held by politicians elected to Congress of all places, lies on both sides.  Now, hear me out.

Over at CNN and MSNBC, they no doubt are constantly pointing out the silliness coming from Marjorie Taylor Green on the Republican side.  She definitely believes in a number of conspiracies that embarrass serious conservatives.  And I am sure there are others.  We generally ignore them, or avert our eyes.  But "the squad" is equally guilty of believing equally dumb ideas.  Members of "The Squad" for example have expressed belief in Anti-Semitic ideas.  But the MSM ignores these deviations from polite society, while of course Fox News highlights them.  And since Dr. Fauci is a Democrat in good standing, the constant flip flops in his positions, and the frankly illogic of many of them go unreported in the MSM, CNN, and MSNBC, while these same flaws in Dr. Fauci are highlighted on Fox.

Now, I understand that people on the Left and people on the Right have very different underlying philosophies, which means that given the same facts, we will each come to different conclusions.  And while this fundamental difference will always be there, it is exacerbated by the often odd people who find themselves in office at all levels.  Today, at The Federalist Jordan Gehrke has an article entitled Why Washinton DC Is A Magnet for Crackpots, Corrupt-o-crats, and Conspiracy Theorists?.

A big part of the upheaval we’re experiencing in American politics is because the leadership of both parties lacks any coherent vision. Far too many care more about getting re-elected, their lobbying gig, or their cable TV contract than they do, say, figuring out how we defeat China in the long term, not to mention telling voters the truth about our crippling debt.

Never mind solving big problems, the leaders of these parties can’t even keep their own caucuses in line.

...snip...

Flake still has no idea why so many Americans voted for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in 2016. The diagnosis the two candidates arrived at, however, was quite similar: “Washington politicians are idiots, and they don’t care about you.”

If you’re a member of the political class who thinks Sanders and Trump are crazy, you need to ask yourself why they were so popular. Whatever else one could say about those guys, they at least made working people believe they cared about them, and they had plans — “Make Mexico Pay for the Wall” and “Tax the Millionaires and Billionaires,” to name just two — no matter how foolish or silly you might think those plans were.

It’s like this: if your wife is having an affair with a homeless meth addict, it’s time to look in the mirror and at least consider whether you’re a lousy husband.

You need to read the entire article, for what it says about our supposed "leaders" is profound. They are monumentally unserious, from President Asterisk, to the Giggling Vice President, to the Speaker of the House, who doesn't represent the majority of Americans but rather the most Left wing congressional district in the most Left wing state in America. I was not a fan of Trump, but in a contest between a Left wing supporter of Saul Alinski, or (sigh) Trump, I was forced to go with Trump. But where are the Statesmen, the poaple who focus on reality, on the art of the possible? Where are the people who recognize that to avoid war, prepare for it? People who understand that our military of necessity can not be "politically correct," and frankly, no one else should be either?

And what does the lack of serious leaders say about us?

We Need To Fight Fascism... Again

 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Hereafter FDR) was elected in 1933, the same year that Hitler took office in Germany, and a decade after Mussolini assumed the dictatorship of Italy in 1922.  Mussolini coined the term "Fascism," but many dictators have used his playbook ever since.  That is what Hitler did in Germany.  And FDR was a great admirer of Mussolini (because he wanted power above all).  It was said Mussolini got the trains to run on time.  But the facts are that while efficiency in train schedules is a worthwhile goal, the otherwise brutal reign of terror brought on a country is hardly worth it.

Glenn Beck has claimed that what we are heading into in the United States is Oligarchy, the rule of the rich.  And I have to admit that with the recent gathering of 100 Corporate heads to a zoom meeting to discuss the rules they intend to impose on us, that it looks like he is right.  But Chris Stigall has a different take in an article at Townhall.com entitled Fascism Hasn't Changed. Neither Has Its Pitchman.

Stigall thinks the truth is that corporate CEOs are not "woke" so much as they are terrified. They are reacting to pronouncments coming from Biden and other Democrats because they hope to be eaten last. And he makes a very good case. He starts out with a meeting Obama had with the CEOs of what became known as "Too Big to Fail" banks in which Obama made the pitch that in order to bail out the banks, there would be some changes. Sort of a "You got a nice bank there. Be a shame to see it go bankrupt." This is the oldest manuever of governments everywhere. Give me you money (taxes), and I will protect you. Even when they fail in their first duty, you still must pay them taxes. You got a nice home there, be a shame to see it burned down.

Is it any surprise then, to see corporate America jumping through hoops to do Democrats’ political bidding today? It shouldn’t be. We’re reliving the beginning of the same movie we first watched twelve years ago. The same guy with the same ideology is in charge again. The only difference is this time we’re all supposed to pretend it’s the feeble old senator from Delaware running the meetings.

Corporate America knows better.

...snip...

Prior to Republicans being kicked off and censored on social media, it was Democrats who dragged “big tech” to Washington to hold hearings over their concerns Republicans were getting too effective at using their platforms. “You have a real nice website there, Mr. Zuckerberg. Be a shame if anything happened to it,” Democrats’ effectively messaged.

Since then Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have done their level best to placate Democrats by silencing and censoring conservative voices, but they know Democrats will always want more. Board appointments, big donations, and new creative activism on their behalves will be critical for big tech if they’re to keep Democrats’ from kneecapping them next.

So, in this telling, the CEOs are terrified of what the Democrats are likely to do to their companies, and so attempt to show their loyalty in any way they can. But, it is also true that most of them are Democrats. Why anyone wants to be an unprincipled jackass is a story for another day. But it remains true that these CEOs are already primed to do the bidding of the Democrat party.

With the gross, in your face rigging of the 2020 Presidential election, though, they have struck at the Republican party, but not killed it. Not yet:

They’re referred to today as “woke” for objecting to election integrity reforms, but that’s not it. They’re not woke - which is really just a trendy, polite word for fascism. Yes, they’re Democrat voters but more than that they’re terrified. They’ll do what they must to stay on Democrats’ good side just to protect their operations from within.

Democrats are prepared to pack the Supreme Court to get their way because they can’t win elections. You think Democrats mind bringing airlines, sports leagues, and soda companies to their knees if necessary? Corporate America knows like any good hit man knows, they’d better finish the job or else.

Meanwhile, Kurt Schlichter infuses hope in wavering conservatives who are ready to give up in an article at Townhall.com entitled The Coming Backlash. Schlichter's point is that what you see happening is about power. Facts will not sway someone who wants power over you. Jonathon Swift said it best: "You can not reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

So, a criminal with a warrant who resists arrest meets up with an incompetent government employee who can’t tell a Glock from a taser, then there are Democrat riots, and what’s the result? You must be disarmed.

If you’re looking for logical logic, keep on looking. If you understand the logic of power, you came to the right place.

Facts don’t matter.

Evidence is racist.

2+2=4 means you’re a transphobe.

This is about power, people. Their power over you.

Understand that you can’t reason your way out of this. We’re not going to explain to our enemies why it’s inefficient, ineffective, or unAmerican to do the things they are trying to do. You might as well try to teach your terrier particle physics with a thick, juicy ribeye in sitting his bowl in front of him.

Tangent: Pardon me for potentially misgendering your pooch.

...snip...

For a while we had Trump to do the pushing, but with him in Florida we can now see others stepping up. Ron DeSantis is banning critical racism. Brian Kemp found some vertebrae and he’s defying Delta, Coke, and "Major League Chinaball" to demand election integrity. The other night, Tucker Carlson charged into the “replacement theory” ambush where we are not supposed to say what the Democrats explicitly say, which is that they intend to import pliable foreign peasants to replace American citizens at the ballot box (of course, sensible Latinos had other ideas, coming around to Trump significantly in 2020). The garbage media and establishment announced that this fact must not be spoken and Tucker spoke the hell out of it.

The backlash begins.

so, I am just one guy, with very little power. I am like a 1 watt lamp. But I do what I can, where I can. I changed my phone to Patriot Mobil, I refuse to buy Coca-Cola. I will never fly again on either Delta or United. I know, the corporations are shaking in their bathroom slippers. But imagine if 30% of the people refused to buy Coke products? What if 30% of the people refused to use Delta or United Airlines? What if 30% of the people refused to use Verizon, and instead switched to Patriot Mobile? These are all doable. Then if more parents began getting on their school boards about curriculum issues like Critical Race Theory, what difference that would make?

Go read both articles.  They are both very good and tell us in different ways the pickle in which we find ourselves.

Tucker Carlson: We Are Being Replaced

 If you didn't see it Monday, Tucker Carlson had a truly magnificent opening monologue.  The monologue was about the Democrats changing the voting public and diluting the power of the native population.  This necessarily disenfranchises the people who live here, but nobody seems to care.  Carlson asks why Americans are putting up with it?  But we know the answer don't we?  The Democrats stole the election, that's why.  We didn't let it, they stole it.

Andrea Widburg has brought the entire monologue for your viewing pleasure at the American Thinker at Tucker's magnificent statement about Democrats disenfranchising Americans. Carlson shows what happened to California after 1986, when President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Within a decade, no Republican for state wide office can get elected.  Demographics is destiny, and we are rapidly being replaced.

Corporations Should Stay In There Lane and Out of Politics

Over at The Federalist today, Tristan Justice has a piece entitled It's Not Okay For Corporations To Take Away Our Freedom Just Because Their Not Government. It is called "staying in their lane," and they are waaay out of theirs. More to the point, these people, who have benefited from all that America has to offer, rather than being grateful, seem to feel they have been appointed to rule over everyone.  Perhaps we should use the Anti-Trust laws to break up some of these corporations. Take Coca-Cola, as an example. Coke contributes to the obesity epidemic that plagues our nation. There is no reason they should be allowed to continue. After all, Big Sugar is as bad as Big Tobacco was. Break up Coke, and make an example of them. And make an example of them BECAUSE they are interfering in politics. After all, who voted for the CEO of Coca-Cola.  Indeed, when did any of them appear on a ballot?

As a conservative, I have typically sided with the corporations, but I now recognize that it was a mistake. Being ruled by corporations is worse that being ruled by kings and tyrants. Kings and tyrants may be capricious, but having 100 corporations setting 100 sets of rules many of which may be conflicting seems a recipe for disaster.  The only thing that is half way acceptable to me is having laws by representatives who have been elected in free and fair elections with proper laws in place to guarantee election integrity.  Oh, and those laws should comport with the laws of God.  What is shaping up, however, government by Fascism.  We have seen this before, and it did not end well.

But there are 100 corporations, and all of them need to be made examples of in some way or another.  The corporation was a relatively modern invention.  But capitalism has been around since man first figured out how to trade what he had for what he needed.  Maybe we should outlaw corporations, and encourage small proprietorships again.  Definitely we should take away any tax break they receive, as Georgia proposes for Delta.

In any case, go read the highlight article, and ponder what we can do to reign in these "woke" ingrates. 

Struggling With Faith

 Michael Brown has an article today at Townhall.com on Loving God with All Our Hearts and All Our Minds. Loving God is the essence of the First Commandment, and it has been said that it is the only Commandment, because if we did, we wouldn't need the other nine. It reads: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:2-3. But Jesus explains the true meaning of it in Matthew. When asked which is the greatest Commandment, he summarized the Law and the Prophets with “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. And the Second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Would that we could actually do these things!

Brown writes about the many people who do not have a relationship with God, or seem to be looking in all the wrong places. The point though is that our God is not offended by questions. Part of having faith is having questions.

All this makes for a toxic mix of unbelief, but one which is also perfectly understandable given the many secular influences on young people today, coupled with their lack of deep, spiritual experiences. To browbeat them for their lack of faith is to do the devil’s work.

Instead, we need to provide an environment where people of all ages can ask their questions, a place where they can feel secure in their searching, a place where they can be honest about their doubts. We also need to provide an environment where they can truly meet the Lord and experience Him for themselves. Without a deep, strong spiritual experience in my own life during those times of intellectual testing and before I had discovered solid answers, that testing might just have pulled me away.

...snip...

But for the moment, I simply want to underscore the importance of us welcoming questions about our faith and challenges to our faith. In order to do this, we need to know the Lord for ourselves and have a strong foundation in our own lives, both spiritually and intellectually.

Only then can we love the Lord with all our hearts and with all our minds. And only then can we help others love Him fully for themselves.

As Jacob was preparing to cross the river and confront his estranged brother Esau, he wrestled with God the whole night through. When God saw he could not prevail, he knocked out his hip joint in order to escape. Thereafter, Jacob would be called "Israel." So God expects us to struggle and question. Because as long as we are doing so, we have a relationship with him. the notion that we must believe certain things unquestionably is probably the biggest obstruction to beginning down the road to true faith. Rather, faith is more of a journey, like life itself.

We Are Each Of Us Masterpieces of God's Creative Spirit

Yesterday's post was about The Most Dangerous Man In The World, and the fact that he and his merry band of billionaires and oligarchs would rule us by controlling every aspect of our lives. The thing about it is that they view us, those they intend to rule, as interchangeable widgets in a vast machine. We are not valuable because we are human, but only for what we can provide to the benefit of our masters, which they conveniently define as society. This gang, which styles itself as the World Economic Forum, views itself, like the nobility before it, as somehow responsible for providing for the people's welfare. It is the same condescending noblesse oblige that eventually saw the nobility go the way of the dinosaur. I am not sure what is in the water in Germany that causes Germans to dream of dominating the World, but every fictional enemy of the people seems to have a German accent. Just sayin'.

Today, at the American Thinker Andrea Widburg tells us that Leftists Will Say Anything To Keep People Masked. You should, of course, read the whole post for your daily dose of outrage. However, the reason I am highlighting it today is because of this quote:

And of course, there’s that same insistence we’ve heard all year about protecting others. But at this point, when the disease is no longer a pandemic, and vaccinated people are not carriers, those who are vaccinated are not protecting others by wearing a mask. It’s theater. Still, as the author of the article says, “don’t be a jerk.”

But what’s really jerky is the effort to erase Americans’ individuality. Our faces are the most immediately recognizable thing about us. Just that little patch of our body’s geography has 42 muscles that enable us to communicate wordlessly with others.

Nothing makes clearer how masks delete who we are than smiling at babies. In a pre-mask era, the babies smiled back. Nowadays, if you smile at babies, all you get back is a blank look – and then you realize that all they see in your face is a mask.

There is nothing polite about – and it’s incredibly jerky to – force people into unhygienic, useless, dangerous, and personality-deleting masks. Instead, it seems to be part of a concerted effort to delete the American sense that we are not a faceless nation of drones (or serfs) but are, instead, unique individuals.

And that is the point I tried to get across yesterday, but couldn't find the words. We are each of us unique individuals, unique masterpieces of God's creative spirit. And God does not make mistakes. But it is this unique individuality that the Left, and of course the gang of oligarchs want to erase.

The Most Dangerous Man In The World

 You know about the "Mask Nazis," right?  These are the people who take it upon themselves to be the sheriffs of mask wearing.  I think they would like to be able to hand out tickets for those caught not wearing their masks, or not wearing them "correctly."  You know, covering the mouth and the nose.  And of course, there are also the "salt Nazis."  These are the people who of course don't put salt on anything they cook, and by golly, you should put salt on anything you cook either.  These people have found what in their minds is THE TRUTH, and they are bound and determined to force everyone to comply with it.

But, it occurs to me that if Klaus Schwab has his way, we all may be pouring salt on everything we eat, not wearing masks, and engaging in other risky behaviors because life simply won't be worth extending.  So who is this Klaus Schwab, you say?  Well, John Mac Ghlionn asks Is Kaus Schwab The Most Dangerous Man In The World? over at Townhall.com. It seems that Klaus and the gang over at the World Economic Forum have plans for you life, and those plans won't be fun. "You vill own nothing, and you vill be happy!" Or else.

"Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, 'our city'. I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes. It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.'

These are not lines from an episode of “Black Mirror.” No, these lines come directly from the World Economic Forum website. Founded in 1970, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is arguably the most influential platform in the world. Each year, some of the most influential figures in politics and tech gather for a meeting in Davos. The most recent meeting occurred in January, and the topics discussed are of profound importance.

As Anthony P. Mueller, a professor of economics, warns, “The main thrust of the forum is global control. Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030.”

There are no words for the arrogance and hubris of these people (Bill Gates is one of them). Bill Gates is also involved in a scheme to cool the planet by spreading light reflecting salts in the stratosphere. Who appointed Bill Gates to be God. For that matter, who appointed Klaus Schab to be the determiner of what each of our lives should be. Admittedly, some of our purchases are emotional, in that people go shopping as a form of therapy, or to fill a hole in their soul. But can you imagine, say, Brian Setzer without his Gretsch guitar, or Wynton Marsalis without his signature trumpet? I no longer use a slide rule, but I will die with it, as with some of my books that I simply can not give up. These are tools, that one uses every day. And what one does gives us purpose.

In 2018, the German wrote a book called Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

With the merging of physical, digital, and biological worlds, this revolution is like nothing that came before. All other revolutions relied on human input. This revolution, however, eliminates millions, if not billions, of people from the employment equation.

...snip...

While the eradication of some jobs is both necessary and laudable, most jobs are not inherently dangerous. They give people a sense of purpose, and a sense of purpose is essential to living life to its fullest. Universal Basic Income (UBI) may help to put food on the table, but it can never address the problem of purpose. Where will our purpose come from when so many jobs are gone?

The disingenuous “retrain the masses” arguments simply don’t work, either. Retrain people for what? In the future, with recursive self-improvement, AI systems will be able to learn from their mistakes and ultimately become smarter. No need for human input. In fact, no need for humans.

I feel that these extremely wealthy oligarchs look at the rest of us as widgets in their machines. In their minds, we do not have value in and of ourselves. We are not made in image of God, because in their minds, Klaus Schwab is God.In their own minds, they have accounted for our minimum physical needs, but they have forgotten the most important part of anyone is spiritual. China Anyone?

Tucker Carlson: “Gun control is not about guns. Gun Control is about who controls America"

 I have been busy, so I am just now looking at Tucker Carlson Tonight for Thursday. But if you don't have it recorded, you need to see it. You can find it at The Daily Wire Tucker Carlson Warns Biden's Crackdown On Second Amendment Isn't About Guns, It's About Control. While most commenters on the right are generally in favor of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but the seldom talk about. Thus, as someone with a big megaphone, I was pleased to see Tucker Carlson express exactly what is going on here.

“Gun control is not about guns. Gun Control is about who controls America,” Carlson said. “Is it the population as in a democracy? Or does all control go to a small group of authoritarians as in oligarchy? Those are the stakes in the gun control debate. It’s not about guns, it’s about who runs the country. So with that in mind, Joe Biden’s speech calling for more gun control should make you uncomfortable. Almost nothing Biden said was true.”

Go listen to Carlson at the Daily Wire if you haven't heard it.

Vaccine Passports Must Not Be Allowed

 Naomi Wolf tells us why Vaccine Passports are the last step to Fascism. This is slavery. Wolf, who runs a tech company explains how a vaccine passport can be used to track and monitor you and all your friends and acquaintances, and punish you for stepping out of line.  She points out that if you don't at least talk the state line on everything, the vaccine passport can be used to deny you the ability to buy food, or anything else.  Particularly if the come up with a digital currency, which the government is working on, your digital account can be wiped out for dissenting from some policy or another.  Think vaccine passport, combined with digital currency and critical race theory. 

Now, even though all this is Unconstitutional, imagine that the Supreme Court members are also under this same system.  Do you think they are going to rule it such?  They would be signing their own death warrants.  Once they have this system in place, they have you and everybody else under full control.

We can not allow these things to happen.

Black Gun Ownership Is Soaring. Yawn

One of the things I believe is that we should always make common cuase with people who have common interests. That does not mean we should buy into their other nutty ideas, but we can work together on that which we mutually believe. So, for instance, while I don't agree with Naomi Wolf on most things, I agree with her that vaccine passports violate constitutional rights and should not be implemented either by government or private companies. Similarly, while I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I agree that they should have guns for personal defense, because they are often targeted by bigots. When I meet one of the Pink Pistols, again on this issue, I make common cause.

So, it was with great interest that I read an article by Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms entitled the Left Thought Conservatives Would Freak Out About Black Gun Owners. They Were Wrong. Now, the truth is I have a lot more in common with everyday Black people than I do with White Leftists. But the same holds true when it comes to guns. People need guns for self defense. Period. Women need guns, and should train with them and carry them everywhere. I applaud Blacks who acquire guns because there is much pressure for them not to do so. And of course, those of Latin background or Asians. All people. Period. Indeed, I even think Leftists should have guns, as long as they aren't too crazy.

See, black men are the people statistically most likely to be shot and killed. Yes, many of those happen to be involved in gang activity, but many others are either bystanders or are unfortunate souls who confront criminals and get shot for their trouble. They’re good, decent people who should have the means to defend themselves, but often live in communities where that’s discouraged or even illegal.

That’s not right.

For me, I want to see every law-abiding citizen armed, both inside the home and outside of it. If all the good guys have guns, the bad guys have much more limited options, and violent crime all but vanishes. It won’t disappear completely, because that’s not human nature, but it will be such a pathetically low amount that it won’t even matter.

Wearing a Mask Is Not Science, and Mask Mandates are a Terrible Idea

Dennis Prager has an article today at Townhall.com entitled Mask Wearing Represents Fear and Blind Obedience, Not Science. I for one refuse to be fearful, and I refuse to blindly follow politicians who, frankly know very little about how science works. Science is a quest for knowledge, and is always tentative. People do not write their scientific discoveries in pen and ink, but in pencil, because they know they may need to erase parts of them. Finally, any scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. If you can not prove it wrong, it is not science.

When I see people walking outside, often alone with no one anywhere near them, wearing a mask, my primary reactions are disappointment and sadness.

I am disappointed because I expected better from my fellow Americans. I never thought most Americans would be governed by irrational fears and unquestioning obedience to authority. I have come to realize that I had a somewhat romanticized view of my countrymen.

Had you told me a year ago that nearly every American in nearly every metropolitan area would cover their faces for over a year because one man, one political party and the media told them to, I would have responded that you underestimate the strength of the American character.

The goes on to say that while he doesn't wear a mask outside, he does when going into a building because others may be fearful. I used to also. But no more. There comes a time when one must stand up and set an example. More important though, is that if you wear a mask, it protects you (and others supposedly.) That is what they always say on those horrible public service announcements. Well, if your mask protects you, why do you care if I wear one or not?

If you wear a mask, you do so in the belief that you are protecting yourself (and others) from COVID-19. So, then, why do you care if I don't wear a mask? Doesn't your mask protect you? If it does, my not wearing a mask may irritate you because you resent my assertion of freedom, my obvious lack of respect for government and medical authorities, and my alleged selfishness, but there would be no rational medical -- that is, "science-based" -- reason for your objecting to my not wearing a mask.

And if masks protect us and others, why have people been refused the right to visit a loved one as he or she lay dying alone? Why couldn't a person -- wearing the same mask a doctor, nurse or any health care worker wears when entering your parent's room -- enter that room? There are two possible answers: One is it's a tacit admission that masks are essentially useless. You were prevented from visiting your dying father because the hospital believes your loved one or others in the hospital might contract the virus from you, even though you were wearing a mask. Which means those running the hospital don't believe masks actually work. The other is that the medical establishment and lay authorities have abandoned elementary human decency in the name of AOC, or "Abundance of Caution." Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to die alone will go down as one of the cruelest policies ever adopted by American medical and political authorities.

Which brings up so called "vaccine passports" the absence of which are used to discriminate against those who do not have them.  For those who have read Revelation, it does sound a lot like the mark of the beast where if you don't have it you won't be allowed to participate in commerce.  These things violate numerous provisions of the Constitution.  Even Naomi Wolf is sounding the alarm.  Where is the ALCU?  In fact, you can read about how Vaccine Passports are a Serious Threat to American Civil Liberties

Please go read both articles, and consider taking off that mask.

Who Is Calling The Shots?

The Epoch Times has a pice today reporting that MLB Boycotted Georgia a Day After expanding China Deal. It makes you wonder who is calling the shots?

Pastor Tosses Police Out of Good Friday Services

 Beth Baumann has a post today at Townhall.com entitled 'No Gestapo Here' Polish Pastor Tosses Canadian Police Out of Good Friday Church Service. This pastor shows the way we all should start speaking out and demanding that these governments recognize our rights. Now this was in Canada, but here in the United States, the very first of the First Amendment is religious liberty:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oh, and this is incumbent upon the states by the 14th Amendment. Not only do we have the Command of God, but we have the law on our side.

On This Easter, Pray For Courage

Interesting, as a follow up to yesterday's post on "ordered liberty" is an article today at the American Thinker by Denise McAllister entitled The Death Of Conservatism. McAllister makes a point, and it is profound, that true conservatism is bound up in Christian beliefs. God is the Creator of man, gives man his nature, his sexual identity, and his purpose. He orders society, and everyone who steps away from this belief can not be a true conservative.

Friedrich Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" contains one of the most famous and haunting quotes of the nineteenth century: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." In a cry of prophetic passion, the Madman of the parable challenges those who killed God to accept the consequences of such a brazen act and recognize that they must become like gods "to be worthy of it."

This usurpation of divine authority by man, and thereby rejection of God's order of nature, has seeped into America's social imagination, reshaping what was once implausible about human identity into something plausible, if not obligatory. Conservatism has not escaped this moral and existential insurrection. For some time, the conservative movement has been sickened, but now it has reached the point of death. Now it lies beside God in the graveyard of America's history, for as God goes, so goes conservatism.

The cause for such a grim and pessimistic claim is none other than the reality that the foundational principle on which conservatism stands has been not only soundly rejected by the culture at large, but betrayed by conservatives themselves. This is not a political statement. You'll find no finger-pointing at nationalistic populism, Trumpism, pragmatic libertarianism, or even establishment puritanism here. These are mere symptoms, death throes, and feeble attempts to scrape together the last vestiges of American liberties — albeit in often conflicting ways. The issue here is cultural-moral, where the heart of conservatism once beat.

Here she is saying that it is not enough to believe in conservative principles. In the end, the conservative principles are derived from God, and you must believe in God Himself.  For only by trusting in the God of Creation can one find the courage to resist things that go against the ordered liberty we depend upon.  McAllister probably says it better here:

Quoting Edmund Burke, Kirk says there is a reason conservatives are called "the party of order." This order is not just external; it starts within the person. "The twentieth-century conservative is concerned, first of all, for the regeneration of the spirit and character — with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest."

This theme flows throughout American history. From Washington to Adams to Jefferson — and all true liberty-lovers since — American freedom has been rooted in "the transcendent order." Kirk went so far as to say, "I allow that, if no supreme ruler exists, wise to form, and potent to enforce, the moral law, there is no sanction to any contract, virtual or even actual, against the will of prevalent power."

St. John wrote that Christ said disciples should be in the World, but not of the World. But what did he mean? I don't think he meant for us to be monks or hermits, but rather to live an example to others. Unfortunately all of us fall short of the mark. But we can not let that stand in our way. We must to the degree possible, have the courage to set an example, and not to compromise with people who present things contrary to God's will. But it is in this very way that conservatives have done exactly that. For this reason, conservatism is dying.  At the same time, we need to be compassionate and forgiving.  But doing so, we can not compromise.

How many conservatives, even if they accept elements of God's order of nature, welcome people with ideologies and beliefs opposed to that order, plunging conservatism into chaos? The "big tent" of conservatism might involve temporary alliances with others acting within the political sphere toward a particular political end, but when it comes to the nature of conservatism itself and its impact on culture, aligning with and adopting views that seek to destroy God's order is foolish and self-destructive. Conservatives might get to the endgame of Survivor with such alliances, but when the true intent and ideological trajectory of those in control is to eradicate objective truth and divine order, they won't survive a day past their former allies' need to assert their godless will into the game.

Those who deny God's created order and purposes when it comes to human identity, sexual identity, and individuality are no friend to the civil society in the long run. They will inevitably turn on those who still believe that God is King of this world. This point has been lost on too many conservatives as they have welcomed haters of God and his moral order not only into their tent, but into their hearts and their minds — a self-deluded treachery of "openness" that has softy sounded the death knell of conservatism in America.

I pray each day that He will grant me the wisdom, strength, and courage to carry out His will today. On this Easter day, perhaps we all need to do that.

No, Joe, It's Not Stupidity, It's Ordered Liberty

 I heard a rant on the radio the other day from Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show accusing people who were skeptical of taking the vaccine of being morons, conspiracy theorists, and just plain stupid.  He claimed that they wanted to kill other people, and that's why we needed a vaccine passport so that he and his son, who apparently has a broken immune system can go to a baseball game together.  The rant can be found here. Go ahead and listen to it.

Somehow, the rant struck me as off the mark.  The more I thought about it, it seemed that either Joe never learned, or had forgotten the idea of Ordered Liberty.  Ayn Rand has a philosophy known she called Objectivism, that includes a number of similar concepts, but is missing one thing, which makes it objectionable.  That one thing is ones obligation to ones neighbor.  Ordered Liberty includes the obligation to one's neighbor, but like everything else, it is not an unlimited obligation.

The framers of the Constitution framed the Bill of Rights around the idea of Ordered Liberty. That ordered liberty is derived from the Bible, where God passed to the Israelites the 10 Commandments. If one could faithfully follow the 10 Commandments in every aspect of one's life, one would effectively govern himself. That is the idea behind ordered liberty.  Or, as Jesus put it, the entirety of the Law is to love God with all your heart, and soul and being; and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Because I am a Christian, and I believe in our Creator, I believe he has granted us certain unalienable rights. But if you do not believe, then by observation you can deduce that people have certain rights as natural fact. The government does not grant these rights, because they existed in people long before there were any governments. Now, for sure, governments can try to restrict these rights, and with enough terror, they may scare a solid majority into obeying them. But we still have our rights, they are inalienable.

Among the rights granted by God are life, liberty, and property. These are not exclusive, but they are the most important.  The right to life means no one except God (with few exceptions) has the right to take that life from you. You have the liberty to do, and to go, whatever, wherever, whenever, so long as you do not interfere with the rights of another. And since a man is born naked and unarmed, we have to right to produce, or procure and own such tools as are necessary to sustain life. Among those tools might be weapons to hunt game, and defend one's life from those who might try to take it.  Thus the Second Amendment.

If you have a right to life, you have an obligation to defend that life. Rights are equal parts liberty and duty.  Moreover, you also have a obligation to defend the life of those in your care who may not be able to defend themselves. This is one example where you do have a right to take a life, but it is only under the direst of situations where an attack is taking place that might take your own life unless you act. Remember that "vengeance is mine" says the Lord.

Similarly, though you have a right to property, you do not have the right to take another's property unless you pay an agreed upon price for it. Another corollary of the right to life is the right to the fruits of your own labor.  But, if someone asks you to work for him, and is willing to pay you what you feel you are worth, then each of you is receiving the fruits of your labor. The fact that you are entitled to the fruits of your own labor is why slavery is wrong.  There is no agreement made.  But it is also why indentured servitude may be acceptable.  At the same time, because the employer has the freedom to do so, he may pay another worker more than he pays you, and you have no right to complain.

Now, to Joe's rant.  He claims that an unvaccinated person might pass the Chinese virus to his son at a baseball game.  The data indicate that the prospect of that happening are pretty low.  It is outside, and of course we will by then have herd immunity, which means the virus will find few hosts to infect.  Most of the people encountered will either have had the virus, or have T-cell immunity from a variant, or will be vaccinated.

But Joe is still worried.  I give Joe the benefit of the doubt.  Still, Joe is essentially saying that it is the duty of another to look out for his son.  Apparently the unvaccinated person, the team owners, and major league baseball itself should look out for his son, because Joe is, what, incompetent to do so?  But no, Joe.  If your son has an immune deficiency, then you should see to it that your son has a vaccine.  If that can't be done, then it is up to YOU Joe, to keep you son away from places where he might contract the virus, if you are so worried about it.   Remember, this is a virus that 99.8% of those who contract it survive. 

And, no Joe, it is not unreasonable to wonder why a Manhattan style pull-out-all-the-stops effort was made to stop a virus that is a little worse than the seasonal flu?  Do you know something hidden from the rest of us?  Or are you a collectivist who believes he has the right to the property of others?  It is also not unreasonable, given the facts, why every news outlet and agency of the Federal, State and local government is pushing us as hard as they can to get vaccinated?  Right now, before you have time to think about it.  Didn't Plains Indians used to stampede buffalo over a cliff as a way to harvest them?  Are we being buffaloed?  Why, Joe?

Dr. Scott Atlas doesn't seem like a wild eyed conspiracy theorist.  He seems pretty grounded.  Yet he urges caution.  America's Front Line Doctors don't seem like conspiracy theorists either.  Yet they urge caution too.  What about Alex Berenson, Joe?  Does he seem like a conspiracy theorist?  These and others have noted that this is new, relatively untried technology.  Maybe it works, but we don't know the long term effects.  

Meanwhile, Joe, forcing someone to get a vaccine in order to work, to participate in commerce, or to travel does begin to sound a lot like Revelation mark of the beast.  I don't particularly think it is, but what it is, is Unconstitutional.  Remember that you can not force someone to consume anything.  This is why, even in marriage, a woman can not be forced to have sex.  Isn't a vaccine even more intrusive?

Perhaps, Joe, you should worry more about you and your own, and let every one else worry about themselves.  That's ordered liberty.

Update:  Over at the American Partisan There is a post that bears upon this topic. Go read it at your convenience.