Why are we having so many shortages ranging from workers to supplies? We are led to believe that it is our benefits here in the United States that has caused people to sit home preferring to receive our generous government “benefits.” In an interesting piece written over at Zero Hedge we find these issues are not just limited to the United States but rather world-wide. We are not use to seeing empty shelves and difficulties obtaining services.
Here is a post for your consideration. What are your thoughts?
Normally, global supply chains run as smooth as butter, but now they are in a complete and utter state of chaos.
And the biggest reason why they are in a complete and utter state of chaos is because there simply is not enough workers for them to operate as they usually would.
On a very basic level, we need people to make stuff, pack stuff, ship stuff, transport stuff, unload stuff and sell stuff.
Every step along the way, shortages of workers are causing major headaches, and now we are being told that this supply chain crisis “will last well into next year”…
Why are companies all over the world suddenly desperate for workers? In my entire life I have never seen anything like this. When the labor shortage started in the United States, a lot of people blamed overly generous government handouts, but that doesn’t explain why the exact same thing is happening in nation after nation all over the globe.
There aren’t enough factory workers, there aren’t enough truck drivers, there aren’t enough port workers, there aren’t enough employees to properly staff our stores, and the shortage of doctors and nurses is becoming a major crisis in some areas. During normal times, we were always told that the global economy was not producing nearly enough jobs for everyone, but now for the very first time we are facing an enormous worldwide labor shortage. It is almost as if millions upon millions of people suddenly disappeared from the system.
Earlier today, I was stunned to learn that a new survey has discovered that 69 percent of global companies are having a hard time finding enough people to hire…
A survey of nearly 45,000 employers across 43 countries showed 69 percent of employers reported difficulty filling roles, a 15-year high, according to employment-services provider ManpowerGroup Inc. At the same time, 15 countries — focused in Europe and North America — reported their highest hiring intentions since the survey began in 1962.
Just a few years ago, any company that was willing to pay decent wages would be absolutely flooded by job applications.
But now everyone can’t stop talking about the “shortage” of workers.
So where did all the people go?
In all the years that I have been writing about the economy, finding enough workers has never been a problem.
Yet here we are in the middle of 2021, and all of a sudden there are millions and millions and millions of empty jobs all over the globe.
Once again, there is a question that I must ask.
Where did all the people go?
This is a question that everyone should be asking, because the people that are currently running things are not telling you the truth.
Once upon a time, a kingdom became a Republic, and the Republic became an Empire, and then the Empire collapsed. It took a little over 1,100 years to accomplish all that, but the end was sure, and no one was prepared for that future event until it arrived suddenly and unannounced. Some say that Rome never died a natural death. Others claim that it was a suicide. People drank poisoned Kool-Aid for well over 1,000 years. Suicide appears to be the correct analogy. Let’s briefly discuss what happened —
The very barbarians whom the Romans assimilated to share their power with began to attack the state and ultimately, by chipping away at its institutions, caused Rome to implode.
Arable land became a scarce resource. People starved, increased taxes drove millions into the poor house, the tax base eventually collapsed, and the only people who benefitted from Roman society were the rich and politically elite.
The people grew distrustful of and unhappy with Rome’s institutions (government, courts, the military). They initiated several civil wars, all of which Rome’s government brutally defeated, which led to people becoming increasingly and psychologically more anti-Roman.
The decline of Rome, some argue, was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity accelerated moral decay, the decay weakened the supporting mechanisms, and the edifice collapsed upon itself.
Some even blame Christianity for the fall of Rome, preferring cruel religions based on murder and mayhem to love and tolerance.
But wait … are we actually discussing Rome or a more modern Republic? We could be discussing the United States of America (or any other western society) if we simply substitute “barbarian” with “progressive,” and/or the attempt to assimilate people who are culturally anti-western. Suppose we also replace “limited arable land” with our insane over-emphasis on the environment (at the expense of agricultural production), if we then carry forward widespread unhappiness, moral decay, and blaming Christians for the immorality of the politically elite — then yes. In that case, we could be discussing the USA.
How will Western civilization end? How will America be destroyed? Hmmm.
By now a long-held principle in American government, popular sovereignty holds that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the people’s consent. Should this ever become no longer true, the government is unlawful, and the people are entitled to overthrow it. How people maintain their sovereignty may vary from country to country. In the United States, the people give their consent to Congressional representatives, who then act in accordance with the will of their constituents. Supposedly, the people are the sole source of political power.
That’s what everyone learned in civics class (back when we had such things). It is true that the notion of popular sovereignty, as espoused by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, was incorporated into the concept of our Constitutional Republic. Over time, however, Mr. Benjamin Franklin’s assertion that “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns” turned out not entirely accurate.
Political reality in America today proved Mr. Franklin wrong. We, the people, are not in charge of anything. Career politicians rule the roost, and this has been going on for so long that the politicians themselves have stopped pretending that they work for us. They do not, and if the truth were told, maybe they never did.
We must evaluate the foregoing as a startling shift away from the intent of the founding fathers. Government organization is up to political leaders, of course, but the relationship between the people and their government is not a matter of the government’s preferences. In the House of Representatives, elected officials must carry out the people’s will in matters of spending, law, and war. Congress has no mandate to support any president. They do have the mandate to support the people.
Note: Only the House of Representatives (through the will of the people) may impeach a president. Only the Senate may convict a president of high crimes and misdemeanors. Other than Congress, neither the president nor any member of the federal judiciary answers directly to the people. The people may vote for the president, but they do not elect him. The Electoral College does that.
If the preceding is true, then why are members of Congress so dismissive of we the people? There are several explanations for congressional behavior toward us. One is that the average citizen hasn’t a clue how politics works inside the nation’s capital. Most of us have no clear idea about how our economy works, the federal budget, taxation, or the necessity or process of making laws. We do not understand many of these things, but they do. So, we aren’t as bright as members of congress. We’re like the elderly uncle who must be reminded to wash his hands before dinner.
Another problem that we created is that we put these people in charge, but we also leave them in charge for years. They are career politicians, and the longer they remain in office (because we keep reelecting them), the more arrogant and insufferable they become. How arrogant? For one thing, they’ve forgotten who they work for and take it for granted that they’ll be reelected again and again. Some of these people no longer respond to letters or emails from their constituents, and even when they do, the tenor of their response is almost insulting. Another example of their arrogance is that they expect voters to reelect them even though they no longer live in the districts they represent.
The takeaway from all this is that we little people are no longer in charge; the political elite is running the show. Congressional membership has become a cash cow and corrupt in the extreme. Once an elected member of Congress reaches five years in office (two and a half terms), they become vested in full retirement (currently, $139,200 a year for the rest of their lives), beginning at age 62. If they serve twenty years in congress, they may retire at age 50. If they remain in congress for 25 years, their pension begins immediately upon retirement. Most members of congress acquire wealth in other ways, some of it entirely legal for them, but not if we did it.
We cannot lay this situation at the feet of career politicians. The blame for arrogant career politicians is no one’s fault other than the people who keep electing them. Some of these people served for nearly sixty years. Can you even imagine that? Currently, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been feeding at the public trough for 34 years, Maxine Waters (D-CA) for 30 years, Don Young (R-AK) 48 years, Hank Johnson (an utter moron) (D-GA), 14 years. Some members of the Senate have served 30, 40, and 50 years.
Members of the House of Representatives no longer work for us; we work for them. We pay their salaries; we suffer the consequences of their political point of view. Their job is to spend our money; our job is to do what we’re told. I will add to the preceding that when one considers the weight and power of the federal government, “doing as we’re told” becomes an ominous proposition. If no one realized this before 6 January, they would have to be an idiot not to know it now. And, as I said earlier, the blame for this completely unsatisfactory relationship is entirely our fault.
On 13 July, the Department of Justice announced a reversal of its previous judicial guidelines, entitled “Start by believing.” This un-Constitutional gem actually instructed prosecutors to begin all investigations with the premise that the accused is guilty (rather than innocent.)
… And Justice for All
When our legal system prosecutes some people and not others for the same crimes, we have created systemic injustice to all Americans through the politicization of our laws. When our legal system hides behind secret courts to consider whether they should issue warrants against our citizens, then our courts have perverted the spirit and the intent of the United States Constitution.
When government, through the creation of secret courts, declares persons or groups of persons guilty of some crime and punishes them without trial, then that government in effect nullifies those citizen’s civil rights. Lately, we seem to have forgotten that all persons are innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
The US Congress, in league with the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, issued a de facto bill of attainder against Donald J. Trump and got away with it. No one seems to care about that because it was Donald J. Trump, whom no one on the political left likes.
“When we say, ‘One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all,’ we are talking about all people. We either ought to believe it or quit saying it.” —Hubert Humphrey
And then we have the situation where literally hundreds of citizens have been arrested by federal agents and charged with a wide range of crimes relating to the demonstrations at the nation’s capital on 6 January 2021. These are people whom the FBI arrested and retained behind bars without a bail hearing. Many of them, so we are told, remain in solitary confinement. Is this American Justice in 2021?
“It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people.” —Martin Luther King, Jr.
I’ll suggest that our government has long perverted our legal system — and to such extent that it no longer reflects the intent of the U. S. Constitution. We should only charge people when there is a reasonable belief that they have violated our laws, such views being only after a full and impartial investigation of the facts and circumstances of some event or series of events, and then afford these people the complete protection of our laws in an open court. The spirit of our law is “innocent until proven guilty.” That isn’t what we have in the United States today, however.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the 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 peacefully to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — First Amendment.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” — Fourth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” — Fifth Amendment.
The government’s arbitrary violations of the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been substantial over the past twenty or so years. It may not matter much to anyone — unless or until the government charges them with serious offenses, and then it is more than a matter of having one’s day in court. It is the terrible effects of the accusation, observing the total weight of the government descending upon an accused’s status as a free citizen, the financial ruin of hiring attorneys in matters that can take years to resolve … all during which time the government has taken away something that unrecoverable: their reputation.
On 13 July, the Department of Justice announced a reversal of its previous judicial guidelines, entitled “Start by believing.” This un-Constitutional gem actually instructed prosecutors to begin all investigations with the premise that the accused is guilty (rather than innocent) and then proceed in the following manner:
Strive to make the sexual encounter appear to be non-consensual by teaching the complainant to seem “more innocent.”
Always conceal inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements by not writing a detailed report for any victim or witness who has already provided a detailed, written summary of events.
Always slant the investigative report so that it increases the chance of a conviction. Investigators should always focus on witnesses’ statements that only serve to corroborate the victim’s account of the incident.
There can be no more remarkable example of the government’s intentional violation of citizens’ rights than the “Start by believing” investigative methods stipulated as preferred by the US Department of Justice. As a means to ensure that state and federal prosecutors followed these guidelines, the DOJ offered “technical assistance grants” to state and federal attorneys’ offices under the “End Violence Against Women International,” amounting to $10 million.
In effect, the DOJ has encouraged prosecuting officials and law enforcement agencies to violate law enforcement ethical standards and violate defendants’ rights to honest, impartial, and fair investigations — which are always the basis for prosecution. From the same people who continue to lecture all of us on the disparate treatment of black citizens, the “Start by believing” methodology had a tremendously negative impact on black male defendants, which significantly increased the likelihood that they would be convicted of a sex crime, even when it was clear to any investigator of average intelligence that the complainant was lying.
Meanwhile, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity notes that the DOJ continues to promote “traumatic-informed” investigative methods, which urges investigative officials to provide an empathetic ear to all alleged victims of sex-related crimes. Again, this DOJ policy is in clear contravention to the spirit and intent of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights because it encourages biased and unethical methods in criminal investigations/prosecutions.
By the way, if nothing else, the preceding should make one wonder “what else” the nation’s Department of Justice has done to violate the rights of citizens who stand accused of breaking the law. It should make one wonder how many innocent persons are in prison for something they didn’t do, and beyond that, wonder what kind of “lawyers” our top law schools are turning out to become rogue prosecutors (a very politicized position, as it turns out).
The Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Rockville, Maryland
End Violence Against Women International, Colville, Washington
National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, “Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent: The role of prosecutors, police, and other law enforcement, Samuel R. Gross, Senior Editor.
This should work out well. I would be remiss in not congratulating the apparent win of India Walton as a Socialist Mayor of Buffalo New York. She has never held elected office before. Mom at 14. All the requisite requirements for public office these days. Good luck Buffalo. Just look south and check out your neighbors in NYC to see how these policies are going.
Walton has promised she will sign a tenants’ bill of rights that would institute rent control and create a tenant advocate; remove police from responding to most mental health calls and establish a new response to mental health calls; and declare Buffalo a sanctuary city that would safeguard undocumented immigrants, all in her first 100 days in office. Her long-term goals include increasing city funding for public schools and expanding neighborhood community development.
In a Wednesday interview with Buffalo’s WGRZ following her victory, Walton emphasized how her platform as a democratic socialist differs from that of a traditional Democrat. “That means we put people first, that means we prioritize the working class, the marginalized, the often unseen, unheard people over profits, corporations and developers,” she said.
She went on to emphasize that she does not consider herself a politician, and that what the people need is someone who understands “the challenges that average people face.”
I was under the impression that governance, just like a business, requires some sort of skill set to see it operationally successful. But of course I no doubt am mistaken. Just look at what we have now running the federal government in the form of one senile old man with the next in line with the only skill is giggling in response to a question.
It is interesting how the Democrats have allowed the Socialist party to usurp their party. There is little similarity to the Democrat party of an earlier generation.
The best of the swamp today. Coming to your town soon.
Violent conflict didn’t suddenly manifest itself upon native people at the moment Europeans arrived in the Americas. Native Americans (Indians) were at war with one another for thousands of years before the white man appeared, and if the reader has ever engaged a modern Indian in conversation, then they know that tribal groups continue to regard one another contemptuously. When European settlers first arrived, they found a stone-aged people who were quite content with their lifestyle and long held stone age traditions. Native people may have marveled at European technologies and trinkets, but beyond the use of the white man’s firesticks for hunting, against whites and other Indians, they had little interest in modernization until it was forced upon them.
Today, in the United States alone, there are 574 federally recognized Indian “nations,” which are variously referred to as tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, and villages. The word “nation” and “tribe” are synonymous. Indian bands are subsets of tribes. The words band, clan, and village also have identical meanings. Anthropologists tell us that it was common among stone age people to limit the size of their social groups, necessary as a tool for being able to house, feed, and/or control the group.
Indians found in the eastern regions and midland plain of North America were nomadic people. Woodland and plains Indian bands usually consisted of no more than 50 people. Whenever the band’s population grew beyond that, which is to say that whenever the birth rate exceeded the death rate, clan or band members were sent away to form new groups of their own. By “sent away,” these new groups remained close enough to maintain their ethnic and cultural ties with the tribe, but far enough away so as not to impinge on the original band’s hunting grounds.
Indians in the west were more settled. Navajo and some Apache groups constructed semi-permanent dwellings and established productive farms. Most Indians, however, were hunters and gatherers, which means that they moved with the seasons — following the herds needed to sustain them, while gathering the vegetation that became part of their regular diets. It was this continual movement of woodland and plains Indians that frequently brought tribal groups into conflict with each other.
As with all other human groups, adult men and women divided their labors to sustain the group. The work of Indian men was to hunt for meat and protect the village. Indians often had multiple interpersonal relationships which resulted in relatively high birth rates, but infant mortality rates were also high — which might explain Indian polygamy. The traditional role of women (also, squaw) was birthing, raising children, cooking, making, or mending clothes, gathering firewood, hauling water, and tending to agricultural interests. There was nothing easy about living in the wilderness, sheltered by little more than animal skin tents, or having to depend on migrating herds of animals as a food staple.
Indian leadership involved village/band headmen and tribal chiefs of which there were often several. One “chief” might have had domestic responsibilities, another in charge of organizing and leading hunting parties. A war chief to defend or assault external threats. Indian leaders were often chosen within a governing council of elders; a head chief presumably led this council. There were also influential medicine men or women whose wisdom and influence often rivaled those of the tribal or clan chiefs. Together, Indian leaders supervised activities that achieved the will of the council of elders, maintained traditions, made judicial determinations.
The role of the war chief may seem self-evident, but it is important to note that there was no fixed tribal territory. Indian tribes followed migratory sources of food. They did not respect the claims of other tribes — and if the survival of the tribe depended on taking control of another tribes’ territory — so be it. Indian conflicts were common enough to force tribal groups to form alliances and confederations for their mutual protection. One example of this was the Algonquin and Iroquois nations, who detested one another with unbridled passion.
Despite their somewhat sophisticated tribal structure, individual Indian males retained their independence — no male Indian was obligated to comply with any ruling of the tribal council or chief. A war chief, for example, could not force any brave to join a war party; it was more on the order of young men wanting to join the war party as a demonstration of his manliness and his courage.
On the other hand, if an Indian brave believed that his chief was weak, unwise, or dishonest, he was free to challenge the chief, free to pursue a separate agenda. Note: this fact helps to explain the “renegade” brave who was free to create his own mischief with other tribal groups or hostilities directed toward white settlers. The only consequence imposed on a renegade who did not wish to participate in various tribal activities was that he (and his women, if he had any) had to leave the band. Tribal exile was the primary consequence of male independence, an understanding that was taught at a very young age.
Within this (general) structure, American Indians farmed, hunted, and raised their families. Relatively speaking, native American populations were small — fewer than one person per square mile, overall— but competing tribes encountered one another quite frequently, particularly among the horse cultures. Not all contact was hostile, of course. There were trade relationships, celebrations, and marriages. When conflicts did occur, it was likely to right a wrong, involving territorial issues, or the theft of a horse, perhaps. If there was one thing the Indians excelled at, it was stealing.
Once hostilities erupted, however, they often lasted for decades. The arrival of Europeans wasn’t immediately traumatic for the Indians, but it did introduce another dynamic into the Indian’s way of life — another human group that had to be dealt with. Some Indian bands accepted white settlers as useful allies, while other Indian groups viewed the whiles as interlopers. Indian alliances with Europeans became another source of conflict among Indian tribes/bands.
Where we are, and how we got here
The relationship between Europeans and Indians was always a prickly affair. For nearly 200 years, the Spanish explorers/settlers in Mexico ignored the Texas/New Mexico Indians for as long as possible. Until Mexico invited the Anglo-Americans to populate Texas, the Plains Indians always outnumbered Spanish populations and there was very little Spanish Mexico could do about the frequent Indian raids targeting Mexico’s northern-most settlements. In New France, French explorers were well aware of their minority and more or less bent over backwards to accommodate native peoples. The British were the exception. The influx of Englishmen into the British Colonies produced two immediate effects: an effort by the British to form Indian alliances against the French and their Indian allies, and the movement of Indians from eastern areas into the western territories.
By the birth of the United States, government officials were used to dealing with Indians; Indian Agents became part of the early structure of the Department of the Interior and the War Department. This was necessary because most founding fathers believed, in one fashion or another, that it was the United States’ manifest destiny to control the North American continent. Unfortunately, the Indians were in the way. Within the first fifty years of the birth of the United States, government officials decided that three things must happen to end their troubled relationship with the Indians. Either these indigenous people would have to forsake thousands of years of their culture and tradition and assimilate European society, they would have to die by any means available, or they would have to agree to live on reservations.
The Indians would not give up their land, their right to live according to their own traditions, without a fight. Since the Europeans were not going back to where they came from, conflict not only inevitable, but it was also more or less constant. The further west these whites traveled, the more desperate the Indians became. After 1830 and lasting well into the 1880s and 1890s, the American government adopted a no-nonsense Indian removal policy. The Indians would either agree to live on reservations, with all the benefits promised to them by the federal government, or they would be killed.
Indians and Americans soon learned two things about one another. From the Indian perspective, that whites could not be trusted to honor negotiated settlements. From the American government’s perception, the Indian was a barbarian who depredations upon “innocent settlements” could not and would not be tolerated.
Life on Indian reservations was more difficult than it was living within the forests, along the rivers, or on the vast American plain. Despite large tracts of land initially set aside for the Indians, which dwindled in size with each new treaty, the reservations were completely unsuitable to the Indian lifestyle because for the first time ever, the Indian lost his freedom of movement.
To pacify and encourage Indians to stay on the reservation (which were somewhat similar to the concentration camps of a later period), the US government promised to provide the Indians with food, shelter, goods, cash, and armed protection from other tribes and renegade whites. Missionaries and educators worked hard to strip the Indian of his culture, tradition, and history. Some of these efforts were successful, but most were not. When it was impossible to convert the Indian to Christianity, some Indian agents gave them whiskey in steady dosages … to keep them docile and in place, to make the reliant upon the government … to enslave them to the good graces of the federal government.
Among government leaders, federal benefits were always subject to later modification, which the Indians correctly claimed as a breach of properly negotiated treaty. From the Indian perspective, reservation life was disastrous. Conflicts among reservation tribes increased, but worse than all these things, the government’s policy robbed the Indian of their spirituality.
Black Plantations (also known as ghettos)
Indian reservations today are as bad (or worse) than any urban slum — both created by Democrat administrations (federal, state, and city) under strikingly similar strategies. I cannot say that purge is the goal of the federal government under Democrat administrations — it is certainly not their stated goal, but the effects of Indian reservations and Black plantations do seem to accomplish that very thing. Let’s review:
American Indians today are among the least healthy populations, followed by black Americans. Together, Indians and Negroes are the least educated and the most addicted to alcohol and drugs. Both own the dubious distinction of the highest per capita unemployment.
Despite their racial and ethnic dissimilarities, Indians and Negroes live in squalor; they suffer the same health conditions. 17.4% of Indian populations are in poor health; 13.8% of blacks are in poor health. The rate of HIV infection among Indians is twice the national average; 80% of African-American women are obese while 30% of Indians are likely to die from diseases associated with obesity. Native Americans are three times likely to have diabetes and 2.5 times more likely to die from it; forty-two percent of African Americans suffer from hypertension.
Living in hovels can’t help.
People may wonder why Native Americans refuse to assimilate mainstream American culture. They should also wonder about the lack of assimilation among African Americans. That any human being living in the United States today should live in such filth as depicted in the above photographs begs more than a few questions, if we dare ask them: Who shall we blame for these unacceptable conditions? What shall we do about it?
In both instances, Indians and blacks have become dependent upon the government for their income, their shelter, their sense of self, and their very survival. It isn’t working. It never has. The only thing the federal government ever achieved in creating reservations and plantations is more human misery, less hope, and early death. Democrat administrations (federal, state, local) have achieved far more than Republicans in increasing the misery index among blacks and Indians.
Yet, despite what the Democratic Party has done to these people (Indians and blacks) since around the year 1900, one stellar accomplishment has been to transform these miserable souls into dyed-in-the-wool voting Democrats. I honestly do not understand it.
For their part, Republicans ignore these problems, hoping that one day the troubles will simply disappear. But this is far from being a problem of white apathy. Indian leaders have ignored or taken advantage of their own people with as much regularity as black leaders have milked their communities for millions gained in personal wealth. I don’t know where Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Jeramiah Wright live — but I’m pretty sure they don’t live in the squalor depicted in either of the two photographs, above. Indian and black leaders are more than merely duplicitous in the conditions we find on reservations and plantations. They are the largest part of the problem.
Have state and federal governments intentionally created these conditions? The answer is both yes and no … and, besides, there are as many whites living in equally deplorable conditions. No matter what politicians and bureaucrats tell you, we will never rid ourselves of poverty in this country. We will always have poor people, alcoholic people, drugged out people, sick people, angry people, and people who try to convince everyone that the solution to these issues is simple: just increase taxes for more trinkets, make more promises that you don’t intend to keep, and convince blacks and Indians that they deserve reparations for something that happened well over 150 years ago.
I would like to know what others think. If you agree that Indian Reservations and Black Plantations are a stain upon our American character, then what is the one thing you would do, as President, to change our direction?
Consequences? Consequences? We don’t need no stinking consequences!
There is one thing that (on the surface) mostly effects self-loathing Jews who run the Eastern seaboard corporations, all of Silicon Valley, and 92.4% of the American media outlets: Joe Biden intends to take over the government of Israel now that Netanyahu is no longer Israel’s prime minister.
Mr. Netanyahu (his friends call him Bibi) has been in office for around twelve years now. He’s one of those tightly focused Israeli leaders who radical Islamists know better than to piss off — mainly because no one knows what Netanyahu will do in response to Islamic attacks upon innocent women and children. But now Israeli politicians representing several parties have decided that it is time for Netanyahu to retire.
They formed a coalition strong enough to force Bibi from office. Not because the Israeli economy is falling apart, but more likely because some other politician wants to become prime minister. Politicians, as you may recall, are egotistical enough to sacrifice the nation’s welfare for their own advancement. It’s the same no matter where you go. So, in a nutshell, that’s the deal with Israel at the beginning of June 2021.
Biden, when he isn’t fondling little girls on national television (without objection from anyone in the communist media) is looking forward to reigning in those damn Israelis. Now, honestly, I am at a loss to imagine why any American president thinks that they have a right to dictate to the Jews what they should or should not do in their own country … but Biden and the Democratic Party (up front about hating Jews and loving Islamists) are just plain giddy about Netanyahu having to step down.
Two things to think about: If Obama/Biden hate Netanyahu so much, surely, he must be one of the “good guys.” Secondly, if Biden treats Israel the same way he treated Ukraine — you know, to get his way about how things are done in Israel — how many Israelis will have to die at the hands of a re-motivated PLO? How many US servicemen and women will be placed in greater danger during their middle eastern assignments because of Biden’s inept foreign policies?
Knessett in Israel
The new Israeli guy’s names are (and I’m not making this up) Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Lapid and Bennett have put together a coalition calling itself (I’m not making this up, either) the Rainbow Coalition. It’s enough to make one wonder if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are honorary members, or if half the membership is sexually challenged. I wasn’t aware the Israelis had a sexual confusion problem.
The thing about coalition governments, of course, is that they all work just great until its members can’t agree on something. When a cat fight breaks out, coalitions don’t do quite as well. How likely is this to happen? Well, the coalition invited the United Arab List party to join them. Should work out okay, right?
Mr. Lapid formerly served Netanyahu as finance minister; Bibi fired him in 2014. Mr. Bennett was Bibi’s chief of staff and quit his post when he didn’t get what he wanted in terms of cabinet posts. Well, one thing the coalition agrees on for now is that they are all not liking Bibi. Left unanswered is whether they will enjoy the political sex with Joe Biden. I mean when Joe isn’t having fantasy sex with adolescent girls.
Meanwhile, en route to the United States (right now) is the Israeli Defense Minister who will ask the US Secretary of Defense (Lloyd Austin, who used to play Token on South Park) for one BILLION for American made interceptors. Biden couldn’t be happier about this because of the Israelis want our stuff, they have to play ball according to our rules. Biden’s head is right now the size of a watermelon (without any red stuff, of course).
So, for all you folks out there who voted for Biden, give your kids an extra hug when they leave for boot camp because you’ve likely seen them for the last time. Also, you might want to call your bank and see if they’ll increase your credit line so that you can afford gas at the pump.
Many of us keep wondering about the consequences of voting for X as opposed to Y in America. If American mothers are tired of burying their children in national cemeteries because presidents and their incompetent appointees keep getting us involved in stupid wars, why do American mothers overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Yes, it’s true that Republicans have gotten us involved in foreign wars, but that depends on whether one considers either of the Bush’s conservatives. They may have been Republicans, but not the American-loving kind.
What else results from our usual dismal decision about whom to vote for? Oh, right … significant increases in unemployment because oil workers have all been laid off — to save the planet, of course; increases in the consumer price indexes, decreases in disposable income due to tax hikes on such things as gasoline, and food shortages. The list is exhaustive.
Yes … there are consequences. Don’t the communist voters ever get tired of them?
Joe Biden has zero grip on reality and our enemies are laughing hysterically at us right now. Biden took a moment in his speech yesterday to say white supremacy is more dangerous than foreign terrorism. Worse, he approached three young girls this past week with the same sexual overtones that he has exhibited in the past. The media remains complicit in covering his rapid decline other than a few bloggers.
Plenty of creepy online videos emerged of Biden manhandling young children in the past. In these videos, Biden was shown grabbing young children who were attending the induction ceremonies of incoming members of Congress or the Obama administration. Plenty of women have complained as well and we have all seen the clips.
These images would have ended the presidential aspirations of any Republican candidate, but Biden persevered after pledging to improve his behavior. At the time, Biden claimed that he would “be more mindful and respectful of people’s personal space.”
The holiday weekend proves he is not capable of inhibiting his behavior. First his bizarre remark regarding White Supremacy.
Can Joe Biden remind me of the last time a ‘white supremacist’ hijacked an American plane and killed 3,000 people with it?
And who burned down all the cities last year and is still doing so? Wasn’t white boys.
Here we go with yesterday’s ice cream lure of the day. Does he lure them into the WH to see his puppy? Right, the dog does bite.
This is what we have to look forward to at the end of the trail with Biden. Just think, all of this in one week. What is the world is she talking about?
The word “progressive” has been so overused in the past thirty years that no one today is quite sure what it means. In the 18th century Immanuel Kant defined progress as being a movement away from barbarism toward civilization.
It included, of course, advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. It evolved from the Industrial Era, a belief that economic inequities impeded social progress. The argument was adopted almost entirely by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, two clever men who discovered how easy it was to divide societies for their purposes.
As with many words, “progressivism” has had many meanings. In the early 20th century, American progressivism began as an intellectual rebellion against Constitutionalism, whereby enumerated powers limit government authority. No modern progressive respects the Constitution, which has become the crux of socio-political disagreement in the 21st Century. After Theodore Roosevelt, progressivism became identified with eugenics — the notion that human populations can be improved by excluding inferior groups and promoting people of “superior” quality. No political party embraced this concept more than American Democrats and German Fascists. Thankfully, we’ve managed to rid ourselves of the German Fascists; we remain plagued with Democrats, however.
More recently, American Democrats have cloaked their long-held belief of racial superiority within their demand for public policies that guarantee socio-political supremacy. Claiming to represent the interests of “ordinary people,” modern progressives insist on more government control of nearly every aspect of American lifestyles, including the economy. The juxtaposition, of course, is that progressives claim to champion the ordinary man while at the same time harboring deep resentment for populists.
Populists are the people who cling to their Bibles and their guns, who deeply resent the progressive elitists because of their haughty assertions that they know what is best for everyone else. Populists passionately detest progressives because of their overwhelming repudiation of Constitutionalism and their embrace of communism/Marxism. Mind you, many populists suffered the loss of loved ones and relatives who were combat veterans in wars against communism.
Despite two hundred years of “progress,” our world has not become a better place. One would think that after two world wars (and numerous lesser-sized conflicts, albeit equally deadly to those who participated in them), Americans might at least have learned a few lessons. For instance, progressive-minded people might have learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union; they might have learned something about communism from the millions of innocent dead who were the victims of communism. But — no.
No sensible person today anxiously embraces the horror of what communism presented to the world — which, I think, is my point. We today find ourselves confronting a long line of irrational human beings, utterly incapable of knowing, much less understanding the essential elements of enlightened thought. We must understand this, of course, in the context of their deep commitment to communism, where such things as freedom of speech, association, religion are as abhorrent to them as gulags and firing squads are to ordinary people. There may be rational progressives, somewhere, but if there are, they have become grossly overshadowed by the supremely ignorant, foolish, and absurd. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stands at the head of that line.
But at least now we know the enemy — which is the right word to use. They are not “opposition,” as in polite discourse. They are a dangerous enemy, but it is the civilized process of electioneering that must defeat them. We can, of course, shoot them in self-defense, but we must not deny them their right to have an opinion or express it — no more than they are entitled to refuse populists their Constitutional rights, as established in the Bill of Rights. But what must change are the people we choose to represent the American point of view in Congress.
First, however, we must know what the American point of view is, and then we must find people capable of articulating it. The Republican Party no longer measures up to even our lowest expectations. The Democrats have not embraced American values since 1828. We must find a different way.