Happy Fourth

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Happy Fourth of July and for the USAians around here happy high holy holiday. (If you don’t read my fiction, don’t worry about it.) May you live in Freedom and see the Republic restored.

Yes, we are in trouble and no mistake (That squirrel looks a bit rough, don’t he?)

I’m not going to lie to you and say the Republic isn’t under a shadow. But it’s it’s been under a heavy shadow for four years, and in serious peril for longer than that.

I don’t say there isn’t a serious danger of our ending wrong, but that danger has been there from the beginning. And it’s been a serious serious problem since the early twentieth century with increasing centralization of power, and the increasing restrictions on the individual’s Constitution-enshrined rights.

There is no point at all to writing our obituary now. This would be like writing your obituary every time you have pneumonia. Okay, for normal people, every time you have a bad cold. Sure, it could kill you. But why assume the ending?

Worse, it’s like writing your obituary when you’re starting to recover. Sure, when your immune system starts fighting it, it seems much worse for a while, and everything looks and feels much much more grave. But before you dig that grave, stop and consider.

We had a serious setback on censorship, sure, though you know what? According to lawyers I know that was a procedural one, and basically the court being wussies. There is a chance still to row that one back. The rest are good news and Chevron VERY good news.

And there’s an election coming. Yeah, they’ll probably cheat their way in again, but the PLAUSIBILITY of it is diminishing by the moment.

The ending is not written. Sure, it’s forecast. But it’s been forecast from the day after America was born, because we are such a weird and revolutionary concept.

A nation, conceived in Liberty, where the king is its people.

It couldn’t be. It must perish. But we haven’t perished. And we’re still here, and still fighting.

Yes, our king, as the king of legends, has been asleep and lost. But the time has come, the king is awake and moving. And fighting back.

Happy independence day, fellow revolutionaries. Stay free.

(And keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.)

143 thoughts on “Happy Fourth”

  1. Question: Do they have a 4th of July in England

    Answer: Yes they do, but they don’t have Independence Day. [Very Big Crazy Grin]

    Liked by 2 people

        1. Apparently WPDE will show the YT preview if you DON’T use the link feature. Just paste it and ignore the busy swirl on the way to posting.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Britain is due for a train wreck. Probably inevitable at this point. It may be fortuitous that “Labor” will be running things when their society derails.

        Roll hard left, and capsize.

        Like

        1. I have trouble with the parliamentary system. Someone on Twitter pointed out the Reform Party, with the third-largest total of votes, won 4 seats, while the Liberal Democrats, in fourth, got 71. Don’t know if this is an Electoral College/popular vote thing (as in, it’s the way the system works and this is normal) or what.

          Liked by 1 person

          2. Rather more complicated – but you can think of Representative districts here as an analogy. An MP candidate only has to come in first in his/her district, without worrying about the results in the next district over.

            One thing that I have seen is that Reform UK was not well organized, having not really gotten together to work a national campaign, from a late start. They were also battling it out with the “Conservatives” for most of the seats, whereas Labour didn’t have a big problem with the “Liberal Democrats” (who will vote with them anyway – so probably they didn’t even compete where they weren’t dominant among the left wing).

            Then there were the Hamas seats. Most likely in and around London and Manchester.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Spent a significant chunk of the Independance Day afternoon conducting break-in of a new sidearm, found last weekend sitting dusty and neglected in a local gun store display case.

        Colt Mustang Pocketlite .380ACP. Basicly a tiny almost-1911. What a find!

        Technically used and priced thusly, it appears to have been unfired. There were two extra magazines in the box, where only one was declared. The trigger was surprisingly good. All it needed was some blunting of sharp edges on the slide. Few mouseguns fit my oversize hands. This one fits.

        Sweeeeeeeet! I was prepared for unpleasant-for-Arthur-Itis, but it is sufficiently heavy to be reasonable to shoot. I can burn through 50-75 rapid rounds without significant “Why did I do that?”.

        One more box and I am over my 200 round break-in requirement for carry.

        One mag turned out to not lock open the slide, and occasionally miss-feed. Two are good. The dud mag becomes dedicated to jam-clear practice. Factory spares are hard to find, but not unobtanium. Time to order holster(s) and a few spare mags. So a shopping I will go. (Grin)

        Oh, and I boggled a bullseye shooter with it. I can hold the black at 15 yards, one handed rapid fire. Heh. Granted, he did that at 50 yards with his spacegun WTFIT? 22. But there it is….

        “Bloody hell. You did that one handed? With -that-?”

        (Grin)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Good-o! 😊👍👍 I’ve heard good things about the Mustang, but never owned one. I prefer a 9mm or .45 for “regular” carry, but the LCP I use for backup in an ankle holster is good, and will fire reliably anything I’ve tried in it; hardball, HST, GDHP and Underwood Xtreme Defender; even Inceptor. Or it would until that terrible boating accident…

          It used to be that .380 was considered just barely adequate for defense, but modern ammunition pretty much put paid to that.

          And a happy 4th to everyone here!

          Like

          1. I too, prefer a .45, either the 70-series 1911 my father and I tuned, or a Ruger Vaquero Sheriff’s model my gunsmith rebuilt.

            But the reality is I can only fire a very limited number of full-power rounds from those, before my thumb and wrist say “no mas”. Accumulated arthritis damage is significant. Doc finally got me on the right meds, so I am regaining some lost ground, and largely off my prior aspirin habit (Previously enough to partially deafen me). At one point, a .32 was challenging.

            Some places I carry require great discretion. Legal, but rather not deal with the inevitable consequences of being “outed” there. Thus, pocket-rocket. That Mustang will be an improvement over my prior.

            Alas, also not 25 anymore.

            Like

            1. Yeah. My sister, daughter, and son-in-law own multiple guns, and enjoy going to the range.

              Me?

              Major arthritis problems in my dominant hand (left). I doubt I’d have the control even with the right hand. So, probably not happening (except, perhaps, for a lower caliber, light pull weapon).

              What I CAN do is to use radio comms. I’ve been busy with setting up my new radio and antenna, and will (I hope, I hope) be soldering the final connectors today. That is, if my sore left wrist doesn’t make that null.

              Like

              1. Once upon a time, I took a bad fall, and wrecked my right-side wrist. Due to complications and the eventual need for surgical repair, I spent nine months with little to no use of my strong hand.

                (Note: never, ever fall on an outstretched hand = FOOSH)

                So I learned Lefty. Including shooting my 1911 and Single-action Cowboy guns.

                Start off with something easy, and work up to harder. Focus on the trigger press, and turning your head to get the dominant eye behind the “other side” handgun. (So-called “cross dominant”.) My father shot Distinguished Expert that way. On about day three of “how to shoot” he started me switching off to the weak hand, because getting a hand wrecked in a gunfight is a thing. (Thanks again Pop.)

                Having none months to enforce weak-hand-only work, I now shoot about as well with either hand, and in Cowboy Action Shooting competition shoot a “Gunfighter” category, which is a revolver in each hand, both at the same time. (The vidgamer term is “dual wield)

                Don’t let a little awkward prevent needful skill development.

                Like

  2. There was another case which got overshadowed by the Immunity decision which is just as important and combines with Chevron, allowing people to sue for damages when they happen instead of letting the government abuse statute of limitations to shut people up.

    There is also the IL gun case which people have been freaking out about. But this wasn’t SCOTUS being stupid; it is the *very common* situation of people trying to jump through the system and get a quick win by ignoring procedure.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Also overlooked is the somewhat companion case to Chevron involving the SEC which held that those whom the SEC (and thus any administrative agency) seeks to fine for alleged violations of the law are entitled to a trial by jury, i.e. agencies cannot be judge, jury and prosecutor.

      I fully expect the cabal running things in Senile Joe’s name to ignore these decisions and flout their doing so, the way they have a lengthy track record of doing.

      Like

    3. The “damages when they happen” case: I assume that’s Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy? (I hadn’t heard of it at all so I had to do a search). The three judges voting against it were Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, which makes me assume that it was probably a bad decision. But perhaps I’m wrong, as the articles I’ve read so far left me a little confused on why that matters. What, specifically, do you find good about it? And a follow-up question, why did you word your sentence as “letting the government abuse statute of limitations to shut people up” — what example(s) of that were you thinking of?

      Genuine questions, BTW, not meant in a hostile tone. I’m looking for more information, not arguing against your position (because I really don’t understand this case yet, so I have no position of my own yet).

      Like

        1. Having read a little bit about Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy by now, I’m leaning towards “It was a good decision”. I’m also leaning towards “That’s not the case the leftists are screaming about”. The one I bet they’re screaming about is the SEC decision than Cardshark mentioned, where the administrative branch doesn’t get to run the courts deciding cases about their own rules. That one is so obviously correct that I’m not going to talk about it now, because what’s the point?

          Rather, I’m going to talk a little about Warner v. Nealy. Copyright law says three-year statute of limitations: you can only sue within three years of when you learn, or reasonably should have learned, that your copyright was infringed. In the case of a major corporation, “reasonably should have learned” is going to be ruled pretty tightly: pretty much as soon as the copyright infringement hit the Internet and was searchable, basically. But in this case, Mr. Nealy, the copyright holder, was an individual — and he was in prison when his copyright was allegedly violated. He only learned of the violation after he got out of prison, and he sued within three years of when he learned of it. The lower court said “Your suit was within three years of when you learned, but you can’t recover damages because the damages happened more than three years ago.” In other words, by that ruling, if you learn about it too late, you’re allowed to sue but what’s the point? The appeals court said “Yeah, that’s nonsense. If you’re allowed to sue, then you’re allowed to recover damages”. I tend to agree.

          Like

          1. Tantrum. They are just screaming because “didn’t get my way, so amp up volume”. Give me what I want and I will quiet down.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Marvel should do a “Punisher” where he wades into a leftroid ruckus wielding a belt.

              Anyone writing for a competitor, or parody brand, go right ahead.

              Like

            2. Their problem is I don’t care how much they scream. Didn’t give in when my toddler threw a tantrum. They can scream until their voice is gone.

              I know it doesn’t work this way. But neither does giving in to them. Let ’em scream.

              Liked by 1 person

                1. Sarah, if your toddlers had reached their present age, size, etc. and were still “throwing tantrums”, I suspect you’d have had a few issues with standing them in the corner.

                  Which is the crux of the matter: They aren’t toddlers, they’re adults you don’t want within a hundred yards of anything you don’t want destroyed.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I never stood them in a corner. My older son was 3 feet tall at 2. By 8 he was taller than I. Standing them in a corner was an exercise in futility.
                    I would immitate them and mock them.
                    BUT yes. a 250 lb toddler is dangerous and should be institutionalized.
                    Sigh. No, I don’t know how that translates.

                    Like

                2. I made fun of son’s tantrums too.

                  Agree. Making fun of tantrums is soooooo much fun. Others are better at the meme’s (I just don’t try). Still I get to point between the meme’s and the tantrums, and laugh.

                  We spent the 4th at sister’s, her oldest and youngest, were there. Older niece and nephew-in-law turned the corner into sanity long time ago. (Over 30 and two children, definitely firearm proponent. He not only has his CCL, but some other certificates. Since his job change, don’t know if he is carrying 24/7 now.) The youngest isn’t quite 30. She normally starts a sh*t-storm at which time her dad and uncle (hubby), cousin (son), & BIL (older sisters husband), start poking. Sis, older niece, & I, make them tone it down. Because if younger niece starts crying, so does grandma (mom). The rule is “do not make grandma cry”. This time younger niece did none of that. Earlier sister had stated that her middle two, both over 30, if barely, both married, one has 3 children, are voting their pocket books (Trump). When I asked if younger niece was voting her pocket book, her response was “I’m not talking politics!” Um, okay. Didn’t ask who you were voting for (exactly). Don’t think she’s stupid enough to vote knee pads, I mean, Kamala, should it go that way.

                  Liked by 1 person

          2. Actually, it’s 3: the one that removed Chevron immunity, the one that sent the “Enron overreach on J6 (and Trump)” back to remove the overreach, and the Trump immunity decision.

            Like

            1. IOW, any decisions which tended to limit the Administrative State, return the Constitution to relevance and convert the US back to a Republic.

              Like

  3. Happy Independence Day.

    “And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

    That the hazards of war and the battle’s confusion

    A home and a country should leave us no more?

    Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.

    No refuge could save the hireling and slave

    From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave.

    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I remember leftists freaking out over the “hireling and slave” line. Had they ever studied history, they’d know the “hireling” part referred to the mercenaries the British hired, while the “slave” part referred to the British sailors who were often pressed into service. I.e., forced to work a dangerous job, and killed if they tried to escape. That counts as slave labor under most definitions, even if they got paid a salary.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Was thinking of saying that, decided against it because I was in a rush. But yep. There are some leftists who understand history and are leftists anyway; they’re the ones you have to watch out for, because they’re in it for personal power. The vast majority of the useful idiots, though, are only leftists because their schoolteachers carefully kept them away from any real understanding of history, and taught them things like Howard Zinn’s lying version of “history”.

          Like

  4. Ian: The SC also overturned the court of appeals decision that penalizing people for camping on public spaces (such as roads, sidewalks, and parks) is “cruel and unusual punishment.” That grants city governments a restored right to take action against homeless encampments. Of course it will require city attorneys to do so, which may not happen in cities like Portland and Los Angeles, but that’s up to the voters now.

    Liked by 2 people

    2. Amazingly enough Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, CA, which is the self-proclaimed “Capital of Silicon Valley” and as blue a municipality you’ll find outside of the City and County of SF, sent out a newsletter after that ruling came down which starts:

      Dear Neighbor,

      On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on homelessness that clarifies that cities can enforce bans on public camping.  

      This ruling reinforces the approach we’ve started taking in San Jose: investing in basic, dignified shelter and requiring that people use it when available. As we’ve added shelter capacity, we’ve already introduced camping bans within a two-block radius around each shelter and in more of our public spaces, including parks.

      This fiscal year, we will move over 1,000 people out of unmanaged encampments on our streets and along our waterways by building additional interim housing units, safe sleeping sites and safe parking sites, and then expanding no-encampment zones. 

      It’s not cruel to get people out of unsafe, unmanaged conditions — it’s compassionate. And in San Jose, the good news is that we’ve found that the majority of people accept shelter when it’s offered. In fact, we currently have hundreds of people waiting to get a bed at one of our interim housing sites.

      Which overall is not really surprising as “unhoused homelessness” was the number one priority in his campaign for Mayor last year, but still.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Los Angeles and San Francisco were apparently backing the “anti-camping ordinance” side in that case. So I think we might see it get used even in some very blue cities. LA in particular apparently has an active settlement against the city requiring the city to get the homeless numbers down. This might be one way of doing so.

      On the other hand, the LA County Board of Supervisors had a fit when Sheriff Villanueva cleared the Venice Beach pier of homeless encampments. So who knows who things will work out.

      Like

      1. However it works out, there are two questions which require answers. First, is this to be open-ended with no requirement on the part of the homeless to contribute to their own support in perpetuity? Second, if the answer is “yes”, how is it to be paid for? Not just the initial construction and furnishing, but the perpetual upkeep: site maintenance, power, water, food, etc.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. You must not have slept well, Sarah. “Constitution-given rights?” Don’t make me start lecturing on natural law. Don’t make me conduct a hair-splitting debate with myself over “Constitutionally-acknowledged” versus “Constitutionally-guaranteed.” And if I even whisper “God-given,” some scattered readers may burst into flames.

    I know raising this point will make me obnoxious and disliked. Fits the theme, doesn’t it? [grin]

    Happy Telling Off Tyrants Day!

    Republica restituendae, et, eamus Brandonus.

    [The Republic must be restored, and, let’s go, Brandon.]

    Liked by 2 people

      1. “Enshrined.” I like the sound of that. No wonder people pay to read your stuff. I recall a few instances of doing so myself.

        My sincere sympathy and empathy over your sleeping troubles. I have some myself, and while they might not be as bad (depending on the night), they have led me to some very strange places in recent months.

        Glad I didn’t offend.

        Like

    2. It’s not at all obnoxious. Thank you.
      And for those wondering, my cpap is malfunctioning. It’s taking me 12 hours to sleep 5 and not deep sleep.
      We can’t find the prescription. I have an emergency appointment with a sleep doctor at the end of August. (If non emergency it would be October.) So till then posts might be in the afternoon and sometimes I slip up.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I see our Health Care system is following in the footsteps of Canadian National Health: “Leave ’em on a waiting list until they croak.”

        Except even that wasn’t enough for them…

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I hear you. My physician said he’d recommend a followup sleep test but lost a clinic, and the one (two?) remaining are booked out forever.

        Nothing urgent. My sleep mouth device is working fine, or appears to be. Yes, I get up two or three times a night. I wake up hot. I have to get up, to cool down if nothing else, but in general to use the bathroom. If I’m lucky, not guarantied, I can time that for when Pepper needs to go out too. That doesn’t count when one of the cats see “oh, mom’s up, must be time for some attention” and they follow me to bed. There is no way to get out of petting (Tj paws my face and licks. Freeway puts her nose to my face. Trust me going immediately back to sleep won’t happen.) A sleep test without logging those sleep interruptions would be inaccurate. I am not tired when I get up. But I do get horribly sleepy during the day and have to nap, where I have to use the sleep device (or I wake from the nap more tired with a headache).

        My problems are related to something else, not sleep. As usual ruling out sleep problems has to done first. But they won’t check anything else until they’ve ruled out sleep issues. Sigh.

        Happy 4th of July Independence Day

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Finally saw my first fireworks stand yesterday. N. River Road. Technically all businesses (whether they wanted to be or not) are in city of Eugene, including Church properties, even though churches won’t pay property taxes (I think). Stand was on church property. 🧨Firing off, even ground based ones, are not legal in Eugene city limits. We’ll see how that works. Were last year too, but still had firework stands, everywhere. Didn’t stop much. This year the stands have been missing in action. Neither Eugene Costco, or W11th or River Road Fred Meyers, have had firework displays. Bet Springfield Fred Meyers has firework displays. Ditto for the non-Eugene Bi Marts.

          Like

          1. Bi-Mart, Fred’s and Sherm’s (big independent) had displays, and the TNT tent outfit had a few in various parking lots. One by the Albertsons, though I don’t know if they had anything in the store. Not a customer.

            Like

        2. My last sleep test was in the late 1990s. [grin] Wore out two machines before getting the ResMeds, but by trading off, they’re still going strong after 8 years. With an autoset machine, there’s a lot less handholding from the clinicians.

          FWIW, my first sleep test was at home. Not truly a match to reality, since the wires are annoying, but it’s sort of close. Had to do the titration study at a clinic.

          I find if I have to get up for a P-break, it’s rare that I actually sleep afterward. If I wake up an hour or two before my usual time, I tell my body to hold it and will fall asleep again. By some miracle it works. OTOH, when my back says “get up”, I have to.

          Like

          1. My only sleep test was the at home test. Did not log the “breaks”, should have. Results with the mouth piece afterwards means they weren’t wrong.

            I wish not getting up was an option.

            One of the reasons I take one melatonin and one Tylenol PM isn’t to got to sleep, it is to still be sleepy after sleep interruptions, regardless of the reason.

            Like

        3. Re: “My problems are related to something else, not sleep. As usual ruling out sleep problems has to done first. But they won’t check anything else until they’ve ruled out sleep issues. Sigh.”

          Are all pulmonologists hardwired to diagnose sleep apnea regardless of the facts? I’ve had trouble with waking up tired for years. Finally got a home sleep test last fall and sure enough, they diagnosed severe sleep apnea. And produced a chart full of authoritative-looking squiggles to “prove” it. Problem is, I KNOW that the twerp who did the analysis bungled it. He somehow concluded that I was lying down for >95% of the time, when I was up and walking around for at least two hours out of the seven and a half the thing was running. (I told them so in the report I filed the next morning, and if they’d bothered to check they would have found I called their overnight line around 3am asking if I should just take the goddamn thing off because I was having so much trouble getting to sleep.) And he somehow had data being recorded until 6:30am, when I turned it off at 6am.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Are all pulmonologists hardwired to diagnose sleep apnea regardless of the facts?

            ……..

            ??? IDK

            At least I wasn’t diagnosed with severe sleep apnea. We do have a history of extreme snoring on dad’s side of the family. Just grandpa on mom’s. Together they could raise the roof and make walls breath in and out in tune, bad. With the mouth piece, I am waking up not tired in the AM, even with the midnight trips. It is just I have to take naps and I shouldn’t have to.

            Yes. My test wasn’t exactly a easy sleep even if it was at home. Besides normal interruptions the apparatus amused the cats. Actually taking the sleep test at a facility? That would be a disaster. Not a chance I’d sleep. Period.

            Like

      3. I don’t know if it’s still valid, but at least as of 2016, *any* doctor (including a dentist!) can prescribe a CPAP machine. I was uninsured at the time, but wrote out the prescription, talked it over with my doc, who sent it to my preferred vendor over his signature. Cash sale through an online vendor. (cpapman dot com). Make sure the prescription includes accessories, masks and headgear “as required”. I found the ResMed nasal pillows didn’t work like the ancient Adams ones did, so switched to a mask. All covered by the prescription.

        I was able to get the clinician’s manual through the apneaboard dot com site, so when my SWAG at the lower end of the variable value was off, I could change it to suit.

        With insurance, I don’t know. Cash prices for ResMed* autoset machines at cpapman range from $299 to $899. I have two, one for backup/travel, but when I’m in need of a replacement, I [don’t know/doubt if] if I’ll go for insurance. I track my own results…

        There is(was?) a major outfit that handled insurance based leases, but the time I saw the threads (a few years back), they were universally loathed. Name deleted to avoid a sh!tstorm. I think BIL is dealing with them–no apparent improvement.

        ((*)) The brand I know best. YMMV.

        Like

        1. My mouth piece which is custom “made” by orthodontists or dentists (“made” in that they take impressions, send those out to be made). It is a medical device therefore a medical charge. But dental software and processing systems kick medical charges out of the insurance clearing portion and charges never get to insurance for actual processing. Guess who found out that the hard way? Only way to go is pay cash, get the cash discount, then self initiate a claim. Have had to do this twice. First device didn’t hold up against teeth grinding, broke twice in 14 months. Current one I’ve had now for 3 years.

          Like

          1. My dentist did a laser and/or photo scan of my mouth, and got a 3d printed (I think) mouthpiece back a couple months later. Should have been faster, but the shutdowns and supply chain disruptions delayed things.

            Like

            1. Since I got mine, the dentist now has a scanner for the entire jaw. Suspect they can do that now but don’t know. The getting the impressions was a gagging experience. Both dentists, father and son, agree it is a horrible experience. I don’t plan on replacing it anytime soon. In fact never works. The son had had his about a month when I got mine from them. He was still having problems keeping it in all night. Said I would too. Nope not a problem with the one they built me. OTOH I’d already had the other style 14 months before it broke for the 3rd time. Sure the newer one is a lot more heavy duty but still works the same. Stands up to teeth grinding a lot better. Though I’ve 100% sworn off taffy, licorice, or anything that tends to stick to teeth. Get dreams of “eating” one of these and not being able to get it out of my mouth. Pulling out gobs, but it keeps multiplying. Then I wake up and realize I’ve been asleep, grinding my teeth, and it is the mouth piece causing the sensation.

              Like

        2. Correction: there were multiple brands for the autoset listings. ResPlus is cheapest, ResMed the most expensive.

          Like

          1. The one I have is so quiet at both ends that you can’t tell it’s running except for breathing better. The mask, I’ll admit, takes some getting used to.

            Like

            1. Mine too. Also, I really do need it. Which is why it not working is a problem. I suspect I needed it since my twenties. Heck, my entire family needs it. since their twenties. It’s a mouth formation thing.

              Like

              1. a mouth formation thing.

                ……………….

                Mine too.

                Hoping since son had orthodontics, 3x’s (close upper gap to prevent hissing from developing, internal “head gear” to *pull lower jaw forward as it grew to match with upper jaw, straighten permanent teeth), hoping he doesn’t have to deal with this.

                (*) This is what my mouth piece does to insure open airway when sleeping.

                Liked by 1 person

          2. My first two were pretty noisy and basic, though the white noise does not bother $SPOUSE. The 2016 vintage ResMeds (hey, I like redundancy) are pretty quiet, especially at the start. OTOH, if I’m sleeping on my back, my mouth opens* enough to leak. Home Desperate ear plugs to the rescue.

            I probably should have started CPAP in the late ’80s, but didn’t really know. Got told by (pre)-$SPOUSE, and being the stubborn engineer I am, recorded myself to verify. Yep, apnea. I’ve been a hosehead since 1998. My preference was nasal pillows, but the preferred vendor is long gone, and the alternative doesn’t work, so I’m on the mask.

            ((*)) Not just slack jaw. My lips open. Sigh. I can be fairly quiet if I sleep on my side, but until the knee is fixed (11 days, but who’s counting?), that’s not viable.

            Like

    3. Only those Evil Christian Nationalists think Rights come from G*d not the State. [Very Big Sarcastic Grin]

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Ummm…I was assuming that was a riff on “Who is John Galt”, not a serious question. I may be mistaken; I sometimes read too much into things.😒😜😜

          Like

  6. On another note – this thought didn’t fit in the just prior thread.

    If these guys

    came from the university town just north of me, they might be “The Eugenics”!

    Or the Habsburgian results.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. “Power does not cause corruption; rather, the corrupt, and the corruptible, are drawn to power like flies to shit — and the U.S. government is the most colossal pile of shit the world has ever seen, swarming with flies and crawling with maggots. It’s been festering for a hundred and eighty years. How do you clean up a mess like that? How do you institute reforms with every fly and maggot doing their utmost to oppose your efforts, and hang on to their corruption?”

    Like

    2. There also be those who might carry the burden of power and responsibility well. The two are inextricably fused, I might add- it is when you try to separate them that problems, and not small ones, arise. Many such persons run from the weight of that responsibility, knowing the great burden it is.

      Power is not evil. Never has been, in and of itself. Power is necessary in order to do certain things that need doing.

      To clean up the mess requires work. Messy, complicated, unpleasant work. You have to watch those politicians like the shady lying thieves they are. You have to enforce the consequences of malfeasance, not later, but with immediate force. Hangings may well be in order, or corporal punishment.

      At the VERY LEAST they need to be snipped from the reins of power and thrown back into the public sector with prejudice. Whole departments need to be cut off from funding and closed down, permanently. Start hounding the halls of bureaucracy with that chainsaw and cut the rot out in large swathes.

      I want to see those petty tyrants fleeing before us and hear the lamentations of the bureaucrats. I want to hear the wailing of the lawyers and see the gnashing of the teeth of the activists. I want them driven from public office and flung to the far corners in tears and defeat.

      If the stupid party had the balls to do it, they’d be perpetually re-elected. No, we don’t need any more new laws, but we could sure use fewer dumb wastes of our money and time. Cut that out, clean out the rotten bureaucracy, burn down the regulatory burden, close the departments and dump the stupid crap (See: IRS, FBI, etc shenanigans). Then you’ll have a constituency that’ll follow you to the gates of Hades.

      Like

      1. What they want is unlimited authority without responsibility. That’s the whole point of a bureaucracy; nobody is responsible for anything. It’s all ‘policy’ and ‘procedures’ and rules to cover every possible situation so nobody ever has to think.

        Like

        1. No worries, Nancy. Like any other writer, I steal things to put in stories all the time, so I can’t be annoyed when someone else does it to me!

          Like

    3. I like Frank Herbert’s formulation: Power does not corrupt, but it attracts the corruptible.

      Like

  8. Not interested in writing obituaries. As the great Bluto Blutarsky: It ain’t over until WE say it’s over! ;-)

    Liked by 2 people

  9. The Reader notes that 98 years ago ‘Silent Cal’ Coolidge had some words for us.

    Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    July 05, 1926

    Fellow Countrymen:

    We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

    Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience

    It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

    It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

    It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

    We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

    The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

    While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

    This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

    When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the administration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

    It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

    If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

    It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

    The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

    But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirely by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that–

    The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.
    The choice of public magistrates belongs to the people by God’s own allowance.

    This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise entitled “The Church’s Quarrel Espoused” in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

    While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his “best ideas of democracy” had been secured at church meetings.

    That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that “All men are created equally free and independent.” It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, “Every man must be acknowledged equal to very man.” Again, “The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth * * *.”

    And again, “For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine.” And still again, “Democracy is Christ’s government in church and state.” Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed state by Hooker as early as 1638.

    When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”

    No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

    Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

    If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man – these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

    We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

    About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

    In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government – the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ’s government * * *.”

    The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

    On an occasion like this great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

    It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook to balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guarantees of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

    Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meetinghouse. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

    No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

    Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/267359

    Like

    3. Thank you for this! I posted an excerpt of it on my blog (which is read by as many as a dozen followers).

      It’s definitely a relic. And a hidden treasure. How long has it been since any president gave a speech that called upon historical knowledge, took time to develop a theme, AND asked the audience to think?

      Like

    4. Geez, no wonder he stayed silent most of the time. I think he used up his entire term’s allotment of words in that address. 🤣

      Like

  13. Canada day was July 1st, last Monday.

    Pride parades in Toronto Friday, Saturday, Sunday. No Canada Day parade Monday.

    March naked in front of kids? Yes. Hell yes in fact, the mayor #ChowChowChow was in the parade. (Thankfully not naked, that would have been a hate crime.)

    Honor Canada? No.

    Y’all Americans will have to talk to the Diagolon Resistance if you want to discuss personal freedom and crazy subversive stuff like that.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. It is not the end. It is not even close to the end.

    Say the worst happens. Say that the deep state decides to stop the charade and declare themselves the aristoi who rule over the rest of us. Maybe they do it because Trump wins the election, and That Just Won’t Do. Or maybe they fraud the FICUS into re-election, then depose him after inauguration. Whatever. They take control and declare it officially: the people are unfit to rule themselves.

    Can anyone, anywhere, seriously think that will be the end? Oh, sure, things will get kinetic at that point. But the putative ruling class will be very, very unpleasantly surprised at how few Americans are willing to be peasants, or to bow down to credentialed idiots with airs of superiority.

    Right now, today, I don’t see things as being remotely that dire. Trump is on track to a landslide of Reaganesque proportions, with minorities defecting the Democratic plantation in numbers unseen since Nixon, a time before “Rethuglicans are all wacist” was a notion, because everybody alive then knew that Bull Connor and George Wallace were Democrats.

    Will they try fraud? Of course they will! Will it be enough? Today, it looks to be impossible, without flagrantly delegitimizing the totality of the deep state.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They quite literally cannot fail to fraud. It is baked in at this point. It is part of the system. Can you imagine Cook County holding a strictly fair and above board election for literally anything at this point? Or a good many others I could name? It is not possible!

      Inky fingers and paper ballots. A LOT of things would come to light, and not in a good way for the evil party.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The only way that you will ever get that election integrity you seek is to duplicate the conditions Doc Smith describes in this scene in First Lensman.

        Like

        1. There was a screenshot of page 238 in the Kindle edition. It describes the scene when the Galactic Patrol granted leave to enough of its’ blaster armed members to visit their home neighborhoods in numbers greater than the Machine minions could muster, with the instant promise of meeting fraud with overwhelming force.

          Didn’t make it through the e-mail reply.

          Want honest elections? Not until you force them, you won’t.

          Like

          1. In my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ novels, the Texas Constitution requires voters to own and demonstrate proficiency with a rifle. It’s also traditional to bring those rifles to the polls.

            Could make things interesting for a certain one-armed lady. ;-)

            Liked by 1 person

      3. As we get closer to November, the Leftroids will become even more blatantly “by any means necesary”.

        A replacement of Biden with a “popular” alternate will set the stage. A cauldron of overwrought yahoos will boil over. Every trick is fair game. Every cheat in play.

        Prepare yourselves, for a “landslide” from the -Left-.

        Which will end the -Left-, as they go too far and everyone else, the rational majority, finally decides “no”.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Celebrate Easter by flogging a banker, celebrate Independence Day by hanging a politician.

    Or I can just go with my mother to my birthday dinner at Corky’s…

    Like

          1. Have you seen the size of those politicians? Hay fork might be the proper tool.

            Rich Giamboni has dibs on Jim Acosta though- not a politician, but at this point I’m willing to be flexible too.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh I know that story. The fools trying to force the Netherlands to give up farming for Gaia should really look into the fate of the deWitt brothers.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Slightly off topic but I’ve been arguing with an Irishman who appears to trust the Irish Civil Service because they aren’t politicians or appointed by politicians.

    Unfortunately I wasn’t where I could call him a Damn Fool. [Frown]

    Liked by 1 person

    2. and therefore are completely neutral, disinterested parties? Maybe they’ll grow out such foolish notions before they hit thirty. (Please tell me that individual is twenty-something.)

      Like

      1. I could tell you that, but I’d be lying.

        IIRC he’s way over 60.

        So, yes he’s an old fool.

        Like

    1. Hey! Another Whiddon. Can I ask, what part of the country are you in? I’m in Texas, but my Whiddon’s came here from Mississipi.

      Like

  21. The thing I’ve realized is free representative government nations absolutely obsess over their every single possible flaw. It’s just what they do. And that’s not a bad thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s not inherently a bad thing, but when the ones who obsess look at all those other nations, where they obviously have no flaws because if they did they’d also obsess about them, and decide that we should change to a “Peoples’ Republic” so we would also have no flaws, the bad points become sort of clear, if only in hindsight when it’s too late. :-x

      Liked by 2 people

  22. Apparently the memes with Biden wearing Christmas closing and wishing people a Merry July 4th are not just satire:

    https://nypost.com/2024/07/04/us-news/biden-loses-train-of-thought-in-fourth-of-july-speech-to-vets/

    Senile Joe really said “Ho, Ho, Ho, Happy Independence Day” at an event today, after earlier proclaiming that he had ended highway congestion.

    Can’t wait to see the excuses they come up with this latest display of senility.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Locking up half or more of the population does tend to reduce traffic jams. Can’t recommend the method. The Leftroids are drooling to try it again.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When I shared the nypost link, I mentioned that of COURSE he sees no congestion anymore…..and added that the last time we were stuck in traffic, we ought to have just brought along a motorcade and escort. Simplicity itself! (As is Sleepy Joe.)

        Like

  23. I just thank God it looks like we’re getting through the 4th without a major terrorist incident. Hope everyone had a happy day.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Regarding the image up top:

    “‘At’s no squirrel – ‘at’s clearly a capybara! The blood, drippin’ offa ‘im! It’s a capybara gone carnivorous! And what in heaven does the moose have in ’is left hand? Well, at least by thar banners they’re on our side an’ all, but, my goodness me!”

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.