Tag Archives: politics

Did it Ever

Posted in Uncategorized by

During my time repairing computers, chance put me in the city of Detroit, about 1980 plus or minus. I suspect the city is not what it was then. The Dems have driven a lot of jobs out of the city since then. It is the sort of thing they like to do.

Anyway, I had never been to Canada and decided to go across the river just to be able to say I had been there. I entered Canada via the Ambassador Bridge and returned through a tunnel.

For the short time I was there, I parked in a lot under the bridge and looked back at Detroit. As I did, I received quite an education. I met a Canadian who filled me in on some history my teachers never told me.

The Canadian city of Windsor stood as a pristine Canadian gem, worlds apart from its neighboring Detroit. The city exuded an almost cinematic charm, with immaculate homes and meticulously maintained streets that seemed too perfect to be real. Unlike the gritty urban landscape across the border, this tranquil locale appeared carefully curated, as if designed by a meticulous set director rather than emerging organically from urban development.

The Detroit River, a remarkable waterway spanning approximately 30 miles, connects Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie. This international boundary between the United States and Canada is surprisingly compact, narrowing to just over a quarter-mile at its most constricted point. During the harsh winter months, the river’s surface transforms into a solid sheet of ice, creating a stunning and dramatic landscape that showcases the region’s extreme seasonal changes..

While this topic might seem mundane at first glance, history enthusiasts may find the upcoming details surprisingly compelling and engaging.

During the Prohibition era, both Canada and the United States banned the consumption of alcoholic beverages. However, Canada distinguished itself by allowing the production and sale of alcohol, creating a lucrative opportunity for cross-border trade. The strategic decision was likely motivated by economic potential and the desire to capitalize on the United States’ restrictive policies.

Ambitious Canadian winemakers faced a significant challenge: transporting their carefully crafted wines across the international border, with the imposing river presenting a formidable logistical obstacle to their cross-border business aspirations.

How-some-ever, given the profit and given the lack of morality, they would and did find a way. During the warm weather, all it took was row boat, a pair of oars and the courage to run the gauntlet of the law at night. During the winter, it was easier. They put treads on pickups and just simply drove across the ice, lights off.

Now, everyone knows that if guns were made illegal in both Canada and the US, guns would go away—until making them became legal in Canada again.

Do you suppose someone, anyone might want to make them and sell them to American criminals? Then, of course, only the police and criminals would be armed.

That is… until the Dems decide to take the guns from the police, too.

Improbable, you say. May I remind you, they once wanted to do away with the police?

As for me, if this were to happen, I just might decide to go to Detroit and invest in a rowboat. I suspect I would have some company. There just might be a few gun shops set up business close the the worlds shortest river.

and not so much as one of the guns would be serialized.

In the What if Department

Posted in Uncategorized by

Maybe, perhaps, conceivably I should start writing posts again and specialize in the strictly odd or unusual. At the current rate, that would be about one a week.

So here am I thinking the thing is settled. The thing is I keep hearing this what if thing. Silly me. I kept saying, “Not going to happen. It’s done. It’s settled. There is simply no way that they will bring that criminal by the name of Garcia back to the US.

Color me stupid. Color me wrong. The what if actually happened, you know that impossible one. So now I must consider the highly improbability of the what if.

Already we know part of it. He has a ton of indictments hung about his neck. Looks like he will go on trial, which may go on forever and a day. You know how good these lawyers are these days. One thing and the other, it could be this time next year before the trial starts.

Those barristers will love that being as they change by the hour. Altogether, the trial will cost two and a half bundles. We all know the value of just one bundle. By the way, he will also get housed and fed all this time as well. That means at least one more bundle.

Now we must consider another separation in the pathway. What if he is convicted. Well, he will go to prison, ironically in more comfort than if he found not guilty. If found not guilty, he would immediately be deported to El Salvador, where he was.

Now tell me what is more unusual than a person hoping to be found guilty and perhaps even plead for a lifetime sentence.

Better than going back to his compadres down south. I am sure they would rather be in whatever prison Garcia would go to.

It’s The Premise, Stupid

Posted in Uncategorized by

In the political landscape of 1992, James Carville coined the memorable phrase “It’s the economy, stupid,” which became a pivotal campaign slogan. Inspired by his linguistic prowess, I aspire to craft an equally impactful statement in 2025, though the odds of achieving such widespread recognition may be slim. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the realm of memorable catchphrases.

Let me share an illustration I previously used, which remains relevant and insightful. While some time has passed since its initial presentation, the core message continues to resonate. Even if you’ve encountered this example before, a refresher can often reveal new perspectives or nuances that might have been overlooked.

On the cusp of legal adulthood, a 21-year-old embarks on a predictable rite of passage, venturing into a local bar with curiosity and youthful naivety. Eager to explore the newfound freedom of being able to legally consume alcohol, he decides to experience the atmosphere and get drunk, just to see what it’s like.

After several Scotch and sodas, he collapses, and his friend is tasked with escorting him home. A familiar scenario for many, he awakens the next morning, suffering from a pounding headache and overwhelming nausea – the dreaded consequences of excessive drinking.

Now when I heard this story, the teller really drew it out. I’ll save you the repetition. I’ll simply say that he gets drunk again on the following two evenings. However, he decides he does not like the hangover thing. So, each time he changes what he mixes with the soda.

After three days of heavy drinking, he realized the allure of intoxication was overshadowed by the brutal aftermath. Determined to solve this dilemma, he made a decisive choice to remove the source of his morning misery. Ergo, he decided to eliminate the common element.

Initially, I found the statement amusing, but upon deeper reflection, I recognized it as a poignant critique of political dysfunction. In modern urban landscapes, citizens repeatedly cycle through elected officials, believing each new leader will miraculously resolve complex systemic challenges.

The fundamental issue lies not with individual politicians, but with the shared ideological framework that underpins their collective approach. The prevailing political narrative fails to deliver meaningful solutions, instead creating a cycle of diminishing returns and increasing societal frustration. Each successive political iteration seems to compound the ineffectiveness of its predecessors, resulting in a progressively more dysfunctional system.

As urban centers continue to decline, a pattern emerges reminiscent of an individual’s struggle with addiction: recognizing the problem only when circumstances become dire. The ongoing exodus from major metropolitan areas signals a potential watershed moment for political understanding and urban transformation, challenging the long-established trajectory of population concentration that defined the industrial era.

Ivermectin Trial Please

Posted in Uncategorized by

Now that things have settled a little and Old Joe and his minions are out of office, let’s conduct rigorous, independent clinical trials to evaluate Invective’s potential effectiveness against China virus. A series of well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could provide definitive scientific evidence about the drug’s efficacy, helping medical professionals make informed treatment decisions.

One thing is certain. We need to keep the FDA and all its associates far away from those conducting the tests and the test reports. There are at least three reasons for this, if not more. First and foremost, they have a reputation to defend. They would never want the world to know that they purposely let millions die because of their hard-headed self-interested decisions.

Secondly, the pharmaceutical industry faces potential economic challenges if alternative treatments prove effective, as such discoveries could significantly impact existing vaccine development and distribution strategies, potentially disrupting established financial models.

Finally, the goal is to obtain accurate information from the test. The FDA has had a long history of making errors. Accuracy is not exactly their strong suit.

If Ivermectin works, it might mean an end to the COVID-19 virus, given that Ivermectin is a very inexpensive drug. It might do a better job of eliminating the virus than the highly expensive vaccine.

Then, of course, all those big drug companies would have a bunch of vaccines, wondering what to do with them. Then too, they would lose all the money they have been getting from Uncle Sam for years of future research.

Fauci certainly would not like to see a good positive test for Ivermectin. He just might need to build himself a good fallout shelter at the South Pole to feel safe. Actually, he and his cohorts might want to build a small city down there.

Just as a side note, the “Write Assist” provided by my Kindle would not let me call it China virus. It also rewrote the text to make Fauci and his friends looks, well, not as bad. I guess, if that artificial intelligence were on Fauci’s jury, we’d never get a conviction, would we?

Rights and Courtesies

Posted in Uncategorized by

As Americans, we have rights. When we go outside the US, we lose those rights. Many of those rights are converted to courtesies. However, many people get the idea that they have rights in other countries too, some of which the citizens of those countries don’t have. Consider the right of freedom of speech. Most countries have no such right.

It is but one of many reasons why I am so hesitant to leave our wonderful country. Moreover, there are some things we know we can do here that you cannot do elsewhere without being arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

Green card holders often misunderstand the extent of their legal rights in the United States. While permanent residency provides significant privileges, it does not equate to full citizenship. To prevent misconceptions, it would be beneficial to implement a comprehensive orientation program that clearly outlines the responsibilities and limitations associated with green card status. Such a program could include a detailed briefing and signed acknowledgment that emphasizes the importance of adhering to local, state, and federal laws, and clarifies that certain constitutional protections may differ for non-citizens. This approach would help ensure that immigrants fully understand their legal standing and obligations within the United States.

Recently, a person with a green card led a protest on Columbia University. He had not that right. More important, as a foreigner, he was trying to run our country, which is blatantly wrong. Now that they are in the process of pulling his green card, the news broadcasters are again on the wrong side. Because they like what he was preaching, they came to his rescue and said he should not be deported.

Foreign nationals should not attempt to interfere with or manipulate the internal affairs of a nation where they do not hold citizenship, regardless of their geographical location or political stance.

Moreover, they should not at all be surprised when their green card is revoked and they are put on a plane home. And by the way, it is not likely that they will be welcomed back.

No Small Error

Posted in Uncategorized by

As I watched the speech, I figured that the dems were making a mistake by sitting on their hands during Pres. Trump’s speech. As I look back over it and the national reaction, it would appear that I underestimated the damage that has resulted to their party. It would appear that they might have been better off just closing their eyes and pretend to sleep through it all.

It would seem that they have painted themselves into a corner. Perhaps the more accurate saying would be how they sat on the wrong part of the limb as they sawed it off. Regardless, the nation saw what they did and apparently they didn’t much care for it.

Of course voters do have short memories, mostly. By mid-terms, it might be all forgotten, especially if they turn the corner and start doing things right. On the other hand, they might not take this opportunity to learn their lesson, they just might make things worse for themselves. Even more, if the economy starts turning around, if we start saving expenditures by the billions, the dems might find themselves in a deep hole trying to dig their way out.

The error seems to be that before the first word of the speech, someone made a decision. The orders went out and all the dems were ordered to stay in lockstep or else. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to cheer from time to time, they were afraid to. The thing is, by giving the order, they put forward a display of not caring about a boy with cancer, 2 women raped and killed by criminals and a determination to prolong the Ukrainian meat grinder. I don’t think the public liked that. I also think, if they were released from the order, most of them would not have taken the hard line.

On the side, we now know the Democrats don’t think for themselves. They are simply robots for the leadership, whatever it is that they chose, even when it is not for the good of the country. …And many of the things they decide are not for our good, none of us.

Presenting that front to the people is likely one of the biggest errors the dems have made, ever.

Just What Makes Federal Employees Special?

Posted in Uncategorized by

On a crisp September morning, I arrived at my workplace, ready to start another day. It was a routine occurrence, much like the countless previous workdays I had experienced over the past twelve years.

My manager requested my presence, which was not entirely unexpected. Occasionally, they assigned me special tasks or sought clarification on my work. While not an uncommon occurrence, I approached the meeting with an open mind, ready to address any questions or concerns.

How-some-ever, this time the situation was distinct. Following a brief discussion, I departed the premises, never to return.

I was confused and disappointed to learn that I was among the twenty percent of employees who were let go that day. Despite my hard work and dedication, the decision did not seem to make sense. As I left the premises, I was informed that the company had undergone a significant restructuring, resulting in layoffs across all departments, including maintenance, sales, and software support. Given the size of the organization, this was a substantial reduction in workforce.

They acknowledged their mistake in letting me go and offered to rehire me. They admitted they were aware that my contributions were more extensive than they had realized. While it was a difficult decision, I ultimately chose to decline their offer. There is no need to delve into the specifics.

The point is this: What is so special about federal employees that they should be immune from being fired? I mean, I got fired. Why should a federal employee who has their feet on their desk be immune?

Why shouldn’t federal employees be required to provide periodic accounting? If they are not performing their duties, why can’t they be terminated? If their absence would not be missed, why shouldn’t they be provided with their severance package?

Just why are government employees better than those of us drawing a civilian paycheck?

After the Lies

Posted in Uncategorized by

While some may find my language overly strong, I believe it is necessary to convey the gravity of the situation. The countless deaths and immense economic damage that have resulted from these mistakes warrant a forceful response. It is important to address these issues directly and without equivocation.

HOW-SOME–EVER! The actions were deliberate, not accidental. There is a distinction between intentional and unintentional wrongdoing. For this reason, I criticize the leadership of the CDC and, by extension, the previous administration.

And now, somehow, we are supposed to look to the CDC for future guidance. Why? I, personally, have had three blood clots after taking the so-called vaccination the China virus. Not so much as one before. Now, I must take very expensive blood thinners for the rest of my life.

Now, they are telling us to take the vaccines, for the China virus, for the flu, for pneumonia, etc. Are we supposed to trust them? When they require all the various shots before going to school, are we supposed to just take their word for it that they are safe?

Don’t get me wrong. I am in favor of the shots for measles, mumps, etc. However, maybe it is time to take another look at the safety of them. Given the CDC’s record, I do believe it’s warranted. Moreover, would it really hurt? Is the CDC afraid of what will be found? Are those who produce them afraid that they might have to take something off the market until a problem is addressed? Mostly, are they afraid that they, the industry, will take still another hit to their reputation?

The recent concerns about the measles outbreak are understandable and valid. However, it is also important to consider the potential health implications of uncontrolled border crossings.

It suggests that their interests, motivations, and endeavors are misguided or misaligned. It also suggests that when I used the word “lie,” it is more appropriate than using the word “fib.” Indeed, the word “lie” is not strong enough.

I Suggest a New Law

Posted in Uncategorized by

This is an unusual suggestion. Typically, I would recommend against having too many laws. However, in this case, I believe this could be a beneficial law that is worth considering.

To ensure the law remains effective, it is important to limit the involvement of lawyers. The length should be kept to no more than four paragraphs, as any longer would likely make the text overly complex. If lawyers are allowed to contribute, the law could become excessively lengthy and difficult to understand, even for legal professionals.

It would say something like this:

All authorities issuing death certificates shall send a copy to the Social Security Administration on paper.

To prevent the inadvertent issuance of false documents, the Social Security Administration should send a registered letter to the individual reported as deceased, requesting verification of their status. If the person is alive but unable to respond directly, an appropriate representative should be able to do so on their behalf.

Intentionally creating false or misleading documents is considered fraudulent and may result in legal consequences.

If the recipient does not respond to the letter within ninety days, they will be presumed deceased and removed from the active register. No further payments will be made to that individual, except for any applicable survivor benefits.

An appropriate consequence should be included. The advantage of the law is that it would prevent sending payments to deceased individuals, and it would be easily understood by all.

The process of distributing payments to individuals located outside the United States may require a more nuanced approach. It would be prudent to consult legal experts who can navigate the complexities of international law and ensure compliance with relevant regulations.

The advantages of this approach are straightforward:

1) It encourages ethical behavior and accountability.

2) It helps preserve the Social Security system for future generations.

3) It protects the system from those who would seek to exploit it for personal gain, ensuring its sustainability for younger individuals.

Two Reasons, Same Decision

Posted in Uncategorized by

It appears that the President has decided to implement tariffs on imported steel and aluminum in order to protect the domestic industry and its workers. While the reasoning behind this decision is not entirely clear, the aim seems to be to support American jobs and businesses in these sectors.

Our strategic position is a matter of national security. In the event of war, ensuring access to critical resources like steel and aluminum is crucial for our ability to manufacture the tanks, planes, and other military equipment needed to prevail. Our past success in defeating Germany was largely due to our capacity for mass production of these vital assets. Maintaining this industrial capability is essential for safeguarding our nation’s defense.

Nonetheless, let’s put both these reasons aside for a moment. Instead, let’s examine the concept of a monopoly. The typical approach to establishing a monopoly is by aggressively lowering prices to drive all competitors out of the market.

If China had any desire to do such a thing to the US, it would never happen as long as the competition was industry to industry; steel factory against steel factory. However, when the Chinese government helps to finance Chinese steel factories, it makes it impossible for the American factories to compete.

Then, when the American plants cease to operate and the US no longer has skilled steel workers, China can charge whatever it wants. Moreover, if China decides to wage war against us, we will be completely at their mercy. The Chinese government is not known for its mercy.

Maintaining a strong steel and aluminum industry is not an option. It is absolutely essential; that is, unless we do not mind learning Chinese.

As for me, I prefer American English.