Thoughts Aloud

Ignore all the hyperbole over Elon trying ONE small hit from Joe’s tobacco/marijuana hybrid joint, two hours into the interview, which did not appear to change his mental state at all. Watch this utterly fascinating conversation for yourself. I promise the time will not be wasted.

I can’t imagine anyone better qualified to explore Musk’s remarkable mind. Many truly thought provoking discussions on very diverse subjects arise. Enjoy!  :)  â—„Daveâ–º

As much as I have enjoyed participation in these conversations in the past, it has taken a turn that I do not enjoy in the least. Perhaps, as Jim suggests, that is because I cannot effectively respond to his arguments. So what? You either spend your hours doing what you like or you are a fool.

I leave you all with one parting comment… insult intended:

It is possible to be blinded by your own brilliance.

Troy

St J9 and I are off to Russia for a while (river cruise from St. Pete to Moscow). Feel free to trash me while I am gone but expect no responses (not taking PC even though there is WIFI onboard).

Cheers,

Troy

On a recent comment, Jim offered a link to David Friedman’s discussion of his “Hard Problem,” regarding national defense in a stateless society. It reminded me of Harry Browne’s elegant solution 45 years ago, in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” Longtime readers will recall that this is my favorite book, which I have reread at least once a year since 1979, just to keep me grounded. Anyone think they can refute Harry?:

National Defense

What about national defense? Isn’t the nation safe from foreign enemies only because of the government?

What is a nation? In common usage, a nation is considered to be a geographical area under the jurisdiction of a single government that isn’t a subdivision of a larger government. The government assumes responsibility for the defense of the geographical area and makes all decisions regarding armed conflict with outsiders.

If there were no government, there’d be no nation. And if there were no nation, there’d be nothing to defend.

If that sounds too simple, think about it. No aggressor conquers a nation by overcoming every single inhabitant and occupying every part of the geographical area. It would be far too expensive to do so.

Instead, the aggressor applies force against the country until the government of that nation surrenders. Then the aggressor takes over the existing governmental machinery to enforce the occupation. If no such machinery existed, how could it enforce the occupation?

Hitler couldn’t have conquered Europe without the help provided by the governments of the occupied nations. Would he have sent every one of his Nazis into Norway to police all the Norwegians? If he had, who would have been left at home to police the Germans?

That doesn’t mean that aggression would stop if there were no governments. But the aggression would be no more formidable than the examples of crime we’ve already covered.

Hydrogen bombs and other modern tools of war are effective only when they can be used to pressure governments. Enemy rulers have nothing to gain by destroying U.S. property and people — except as a means of pressuring the government to surrender. Otherwise, the more they destroy, the less value to them in conquering the nation.

If there were no federal government in the U.S., the Communists would have to conquer fifty different state governments — which would be far more difficult. But what if there were no state governments? Then they’d have to conquer every town separately.

But what if there were no town governments — no governments at all? Then they’d have to make over 200 million separate conquests — and use millions of their own policemen to set up new governments.

Obviously the answer to the threat of communism (or any other enemy) is not a stronger government to defend us but just the opposite. We’d be far safer if there were no government to conquer.

It’s surprising how many “national issues,” problems that “cry out” for government intervention, wouldn’t even exist if there were no governments.

The dictators of the world have always operated in countries where there was a strong respect for government. The prevailing European awe of the state has produced an endless number of tyrants, wars, and low standards of living.

And now that generations of Americans have been taught that governments are vital to their well-being, present-day Americans are afflicted with all the problems that invariably result from big government.

Such a trend has developed over many lifetimes; it won’t be reversed within ours. Governments grow naturally because individuals see them as ways of increasing their rewards at lower expense. It’s an over simplification to say that people want “something for nothing.” All people want to obtain as much as possible for as little effort as possible; that’s why labor-saving devices are valuable.

Unfortunately, however, government isn’t the labor-saving device it appears to be. It always gives back less than it takes. But because it does appear to be a giver of good things, its appeal is almost universal and there isn’t much likelihood that the trend will be reversed.

Browne, Harry. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Kindle Locations 1640-1678). Kindle Edition.

Pretty simple logic, huh? â—„Daveâ–º

There are many, including me, who are very worried about the current drift of our Republic and who express that worry aloud, hoping to spur others into action while action is still possible. We truly mean well but I am now not so sure we have done well.

For my own part, I have tried to peer as far into the future as I can, with an eye as to where I think this is all leading. In doing so, I fear that I, and others like me, may have done a disservice despite our good intentions.

What an I talking about? Simply this. Despite our obvious (to me) deterioration as a self-governing Republic, the fact remains that we are still among the freest people ever to inhabit this planet. For instance, we are having a discussion, of sorts, about Assassination Politics, in an open and public forum without the slightest fear that there will come that knock at the door in the middle of the night with some frightening character saying “come with me”.

Does this sound far out? Well, it does only to those who are ignorant of both history and current events. The fact is that there are relatively few places on this Earth where we could get by with the conversations we have here. Not just AP but me, calling the former President of the Republic (and several of his minions) “traitors”. And, we sign our missives with our own names without fear of anything worse than disagreement within the forum. Whether our ideas are true or not is not the issue – it is the fact that we can offer them without any fear of physical retribution that counts.

I think it is healthy to publicly discuss our errors, to try to learn from them and maybe even seek ways to improve. But, in doing so, we should not lose sight of what we still have. If I have contributed to such loss of sight, then I am truly sorry because that was never my intent.

The fact is, I think this Republic is still worth saving and, indeed, can be saved. We might even have a President who agrees and is trying, in his way, to do just that.

Think (not feel) about it.

Troy L Robinson

It would appear to be the season for redefining who we are, how we think, and how we became us. My lifelong journey from academic liberal, to patriotic authoritarian, to selfish libertarian, to now being an avowed stateless anarchist, is fairly well documented on this blog. What is most interesting to me is that although I literally spent years studying and pondering the subject before making that last leap, few seem to take my decision seriously. At times it is trivialized and/or ridiculed hereabouts. I reckon it is the connotation most have for the word ‘anarchy.’ To me it means stateless — without rulers — not without order. Perhaps it is time to republish my 2 ½-year-old essay, to try to elucidate my thinking once more:

Liberty or the State

Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.

What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.

For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”

Read the rest of this entry »

I realize that I often express what, for some of you, seems an odd point of view. For some reason, I feel compelled to attempt to explain myself.

For years, I was a systems analyst at IBM, and also a bit mentally challenged (I am a highly functioning autistic).

Over the years, I began to think that I actually knew what I was doing – at least part of the time. Following is a bit of what I think I learned:

–> All things that involve more than one active component are systems.

→ All systems naturally seek a level of equilibrium because a system that is seriously out of balance cannot function.

→ Many people who study a system and detect an inevitable flaw (nothing is perfect) mistakenly conclude that they can “fix” the one flaw while the remainder of the system will continue, unchanged. This is always false because when you change any attribute of a system, its equilibrium is also changed. As the system seeks a new equilibrium, the initial change will radiate through the system, often changing it in ways that the original change agent neither anticipated or desired.

→ I am convinced of the truth of the above because I have used it to great advantage in my career. While the best analyst can never fully predict all the changes that will be triggered by the initial “fix”, simply knowing that they will likely happen better prepares one to deal with the reality of what one is doing – as opposed to the “good intentions” that originally motivated the change. My overall explanation is that this is simply part of the “connectedness” of everything in the universe.

→ While this is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, and I realize that this is more than a little abstract, it very accurately describes how my mind works and, I hope, will allow you to better tolerate my sometimes strange conclusions about things.

BTW, if some of you are wondering why I recently became more active in this blog again, it is because I got some steroid shots for my arthritis problems and, as a result, am taking far less oxycodone, leaving my mind clearer.

Thank you for your forbearance.

Troy L Robinson

One might think that, given the conversations RE: AP, that I am some sort of government apologist. Let me assure you I am anything but. Ergo, the following confusion in my mind:

The outcry over the meanie Trump separating minor children from adult criminals at the border has now reached a new level of “theater of the ridiculous” in the growing call to eliminate ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Let us think about this a moment: ICE is a law enforcement arm of the executive branch of our government that is tasked with the enforcement of laws duly passed in our legislature and signed into law by presidents past. Admitting that ICE has its share of bullies, just as does any other group of humanity to whom some level of power has been conveyed… in the main, it attempts to do nothing more or less than enforce the law in a legal and proper manner and in the plain sight of the citizens they seek to protect.

Yet, thousands of loonies demonstrate and demand its dissolution. Well, our Constitution does give loonies the right to bay at the moon if they so desire.

Meanwhile, there is a clandestine organization in this same government that operates in the shadows and has been proven repeatedly to violate our laws by domestic spying on our citizens. I refer, of course, to the NSA (National Security Agency). Unlike ICE, these people are a real and present danger to the liberty and the right to privacy of our citizens. Yet, I see no demonstrations against them, no demand for their dissolution. Even after whistle blowers like Edward Snowden have shown us indisputable evidence of their crimes. Indeed, many of us have been brainwashed into thinking Snowden is the criminal rather than NSA.

Is there a point to this rant you ask? Yes there is. That point is to illustrate how disconnected we have become, how we constantly fail as the ultimate watchdog over our government and how easily we are easily misled by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

If WTS don’t get off our lazy butts and take back control of our government, we have only ourselves to blame. Despite what Jim and Dave think of those in power, they are doing exactly what most of us would do if we were in the same position. It is simply human nature.

Think about it – then flail me as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

Note that I have started a fresh thread for this topic since we are evidently going to continue debating what I consider a frivolous topic. But I must do something to attempt to keep my aging brain alive and this is as good as any I suppose.

Let me begin by illustrating what I consider one fatal flaw in Jim/Bill’s reasoning using a direct quote from the essay (emphasis added by me):

Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public’s trust, or misuses the powers that they feel should be limited…

First, if “they” are watching the evening news, there is an almost certain probability that “they” are being misled to some extent.

Second, feeling is the result of an emotional reaction, not a deliberate intellectual review of the facts, including attempts to verify said facts from multiple sources.

This hardly constitutes the basis of a death sentence.

Now, focus on this very moment in time – a number of Americans who watch the evening news, feel that President Trump is separating Hispanic children from their (possible) parents, presumably because hes does not like children/Hispanics/people in general, and is keeping them in dog kennel like cages. Never mind that the supporting photos of children in kennels were taken during the Obama administration.

Would it not then follow that, given your AP proposal, Trump along with a number of Border Patrol personnel should be assassinated? What other conclusion could one arrive at? Yet, those who bother to examine the situation intellectually realize that Trump is merely enforcing laws duly passed by Congress and also enforced by previous administrations. Yes, perhaps Trump has added a degree of added vigor to the enforcement in an attempt to get the Congress off their collective butts and do something for a change.

IMHO, in the situation under consideration, it is the Congress that richly deserves every bit of the blame for a sorry situation that has persisted for years – yet feelings prompted by distortions on the evening news lead to quite a different conclusion.

You go on to talk about the utility of killing various despots, past and present, rather than engage in war with the nations they seem to control. Do you really believe that a few evil people can control a nation of millions without some level of consent from those millions, even though that consent may be passive or fear driven? If the only way to escape the yoke of a tyrant is by assassinating said tyrant, then, by definition, the United States could never have happened. But it did happen. And the Constitutional system of government bequeathed to us by our founders transformed a rag-tag collection of ex-colonies into the most free, most prosperous and most powerful nation in human history in the historic blink of an eye. Why not simply revert to the system they gave us before we became too spoiled to maintain it?

Can you not see why such your AP proposal alarms me​?

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

It should be quite clear to anyone paying any attention that the massive protests over everything Trump related get ever closer to outright violence. I lived through the Vietnam War protests and clearly remember students being shot by folks in uniform before the then president shirked his duty and surrendered.

Even though the shots are not ringing out (yet), this seems to me a far more polarized situation than we have experienced since our first Civil War.

One factor that the protesting progressives seem to have overlooked (despite the growing evidence) is that we clod-heads in “flyover country” are heavily armed and, usually, well skilled in the use of said arms. Do these coastal fools really think they can unseat a duly elected president and complete the destruction of our Republic without serious resistance?

Not going to happen. Will there be a “winner” in the coming conflict? I can’t see how there could be. As soon as serious blood begins to flow, our enemies will be picking over our dead and wounded bodies worse than the Arabs during the WWII campaigns in North Africa.

Then there is the matter of what our military will do once it hits the fan. My suspicion is that divisions of opinion within the military will mirror those of the nation in general. No idea how that will play out.

Point is, I truly think we are heading into a situation that will produce only losses – losses that could be easily avoided by talking rather than screaming at each other. That said, the intentional destruction of our national education system is surely about to pay the predictable dividends.

The fact that this is taking a bit longer to materialize than I predicted in earlier articles does not change the reality I think I see all around me. The other thing that I see is that the “good people” for the most part are silently hunkering down hoping the whole thing will simply go away. As it such problems ever do.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

While I still support much of the libertarian agenda, such as decriminalization of drugs, I quit the national party over the issue of open borders. Several thoughts come to mind:

First, we know where and what constitutes a nation because of its borders. For instance, were we to simply erase the current border between the USA and Canada, how would one know which nation one was in? Of of the few ways that I can think of is which currency the local merchants accept. Those of you thinking we could at least tell Quebec because of the language have obviously never spent time in rural Louisiana. The point is that both the USA and Canada would soon lose their national identities and would tend to merge into some sort of blob.

My conclusion: no obvious borders equals no real nation. So, if you like the notion of nationhood, you must also like the notion of borders. Of course, the “one world” folks might find this idea just fine, assuming they had the mental acuity to have real ideas in the first place.

Second comes the monetary aspect of things. Many, the Libertarians among them, say, OK, have borders for national identification but leave them open so that folks can come and go as they please.

Unfortunately, the USA has become a “welfare state”. Does it not naturally follow that a welfare state with open borders will soon find itself trying to support the poor and the worthless of all nations with the ability to get their losers shipped here? I know the progressives like to give handouts on the theory of unlimited resources – but – anyone able to think knows that such ideas are at odds with the basic laws that govern our universe. Besides, aren’t those same progressives the ones who keep telling us we are running out of key resources like oil, gas, clean water, etc.? Come on folks, you can’t really have it both ways.

My conclusion: open borders in a welfare state is a recipe for disaster. After all, doesn’t our current – un-payable – national debt suggest that we are already well on the road to the disaster in question?

Why the reason for this rant? A recent article in Reason magazine suggesting the disbandment of ICE along with their consistent open borders perspective. BTW, when my current subscription to Reason runs out, I will not subscribe again. A recent change in chief editors, among other factors, has turned a once fine magazine into just another Trump-bashing, progressive piece of garbage. Indeed, I toss most of them in the trash without reading them, especially when the cover page has anti-Trump bias all over it.

So I am now officially independent and losing interest daily.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

Since the Russia collusion farce seems to be exploding in the progressives’ faces, they have to come up with a new Trump crime. This time it concerns the separation of adults and minors entering the country illegally. Translated: the coyotes have figured out a way to game the system by bringing in “families” who may or may not be related in some way other than the crime they are committing by crossing the border illegally.

Predictably, the progressives and their media stooges are crying crocodile tears over these poor “innocent” babies, even showing some of them crying in cages (via a photo from the Obamanation administration at which time such was, presumably, quite OK.

In the last few days, I have seen/heard several attempts to explain things rationally – by Trump, Sarah Saunders, Kirstjen Neilsen (DHS Secretary) and others. All to no avail.

What bothers me most about this is that none of them seem able to bring up the obvious… can you imagine how many American children are separated from their parent (usually single parent) every week because of minor violations of drug laws which IMHO should not even exist? Do these children have fewer rights than children who are, in fact, part of the commission of a REAL crime? Nope, they don’t matter (at least at present). Why? Is it because most of them are black and/or poor? Not at all. It is simply that they lack political value.

I will repeat again my friends, a once great nation is being destroyed by self-serving traitor elites while most of us sit idle and watch. These people are committing crimes against humanity for which execution is the only just remedy. Please let it begin. Although I love our Constitution and once wore a uniform and vowed to die protecting it if necessary – I am almost willing for Trump to assume dictatorial powers if that is what it takes to drain the swamp. On that subject, if you don’t watch Steve Hilton’s show on Sunday evening on FOX News, then you are missing some of the best insight into our mess than I have ever seen.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

How can one resist the urge to join the Roseanne fracas? Not me!

My first observation is that she did indeed lose her mind if only temporarily. There is simply no way such a comment in a public space could go ignored. However much she may have wished it was funny, it simply came off as cruel and racist.

My second observation is that if the comment had been to the extent that the combination of a Scotswoman and an ape = DJT, it would have been thought hilarious. Such a double standard we live under these sad days.

My third observation, and one that includes a recent Trump controversy, is that humans are, in fact, apes. Indeed, we are considered to be the apex ape. Ergo, the idea of mating with an ape is not necessarily and insulting one. As a side observation, it is also true that humans are animals (perhaps Pelosi thinks we are vegetables but there is no science to support this!) Ergo, calling a human an animal is nothing more or less than a statement of fact. Trump would have been better to include the word “viscous” in his comment.

Please note that none of the observations above are intended to defend or justify a stupid attempt at humor that went way off the track. Nor are they meant to defend the viscous animals in any street gang. Instead it is a sort of suggestion that we all take a chill pill. These constant attempts to destroy each other will surely eventually succeed in destroying us all.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

If so, all you need to do is watch the movie Chappaquiddick. I always suspected that the whole Kennedy clan was rotten to the core but this, even with attempts to clean it up, was revolting in every way. (Would you believe my Mother was a Kennedy? Best I can tell, from the Scottish branch, not the Irish. Be thankful for small things.)

Then there is the ongoing farce with Facebook. Just read on Drudge that Zuckerberg will not be placed under oath and that his company is a large contributor to the committees that will be questioning him. Hillary all over again.

Then there is the Donald. It seems the hounds very nearly have him at bay. What should he do in response? I’m sure he is guilty of something – our legal code has become so convoluted that each and every one of us commits several felonies per week, without even knowing it. I have a radical suggestion for Donald. Declare himself dictator, hang as many of the traitors as he can round up, then start the country from scratch again.

I know this is an odd suggestion coming from one who reveres the Constitution as I do but – every indication I can judge suggests we are already on our way to dictatorship and, fool that I may be, I prefer it be Trump rather than a Clinton or a Kennedy.

Gag!

Troy L Robinson

OK Dave – have at me.

The Austin area having been my past home for many years – and the current home of a daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons, one can easily understand my interest in the recent bombings there.

My first observation is that this moron of a perpetrator was home-schooled and raised to be a religious fanatic. Why then is anyone surprised when he behaves like a typical religious fanatic?

Note further than no single religious movement has a monopoly on fanaticism – all of them are subject to it. I guess it just comes with the territory – you learn to believe the impossible then suddenly everything SEEMS possible, however perverted it really is.

My second observation is that the moron did illustrate a very good point, assuming anyone in power was paying attention. That point is that gun control is a joke and has always been a joke. What do the powers that be propose now? Shut down Home Depot and outlaw the sale of nails? At what point does the nonsense in this approach shine through?

I have a better idea. How about we fix our school system so that it actually teaches things worth knowing – like, how to coexist in a peaceful world and how to process information such that they are much less likely to be taken in by fanaticism. Then, how about we return to that obsolete notion of holding people responsible for their own actions, starting when they are small children.

My final observation is that we should all grow up a bit. It is a known fact that freedom is NOT free. Indeed, it has many costs and one of those is that a few people will misuse their freedom to do harm to others. Yes, we can punish them after the fact if we so choose but there is little we can do before the fact (or before the act if you prefer). Trending toward a police state is simply not a valid answer – although, those who are greedy for power will try to convince the rest of us that it is.

Honestly, do fewer people get harmed in a police state? Or it is just the source of the harm that is different? (Deranged dictators rather than deranged citizens.)

We tolerate tens of thousands of dead an maimed each year in order to have the freedom to drive our own vehicles. We sacrifice who knows how many to the great god known as junk food. We lose who knows how many for the privilege of altering our minds with alcohol, nicotine and other drugs. Why then do we get so excited when the source of harm goes BOOM as we are killed?

Grow up America.

Troy L Robinson

Our old friend Pat Condell has been experiencing too much grief with YouTube’s SJW censors blocking his videos. He has started new channels on Bitchute and elsewhere. This is to experiment with embedding a Bitchute video here:

It required installing an iframe plugin; but it seems to work, although I would prefer less space between it and the text.

BTW: Personally, I think rapists should be “cured” before being deported. Here is a handy tool I used to own when I was a cattle rancher, which worked like a charm for making steers out of bull calves. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

The old mantra was “see something, say something.”

After the Broward massacre, the new mantra evidently is “see something, say something, be ignored”.

Seems that even the FBI (Federal Bureau of Incompetence) was warned about this kook Cruz still no one did anything. That is, until the kook did something.

Of course, guns are the problem just like automobiles are the reason for the carnage on our highways. So, no cars, no car wrecks – no guns, no shooting. Seems simple enough but what about knives, bombs or just plain tree limbs?

Just to muddy the waters a bit with some abnormal thinking —— might it be that the tools are almost beside the point and the real issue is why so many among us, especially the young, want to kill indiscriminately. Might this not indicate a very severe problem in modern culture that we conveniently ignore? Might we be building a brave new world that is virtually without values or self-responsibility? Has actual life been reduced to some ultra-real game, little different from a virtual game except the blood actually stains your clothes?

Folks, it is way past time to rise up and discard this ridiculous fiasco that passes itself off for government at all levels. In fact, they are just giant manipulation machines meant to herd us about while having us produce for their benefit. So there is a massacre now and then – in the final analysis, don’t these serve only to give the manipulators more power over us? Yes, the word for public consumption is that these “heroes” are going to make whatever it is better but, when have they ever?

As some pundit said while reporting from Broward yesterday, “this is the new normal, get used to it” to which I reply, “there is nothing normal about this and I am damned if I will get used to it”.

Think about it,

Troy L Robinson

I had never heard of Naval Rivikant, until Scott Adams spoke highly of him on Periscope. He recently did his own first Periscope:

https://www.pscp.tv/naval/1eaKbqrWloRxX

…which I found rather riveting — probably, because I found myself in such agreement with most of his philosophy and advice. When you have an hour you are willing to invest in something besides politics, I highly recommend watching it.  Crank up all the volume you can get; but I am sure he will sort out the technical issues for future broadcasts, to which I am very much looking forward. Enjoy… 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

This exceedingly unequal contest is epic:

Rather good-naturedly, an articulate thinker utterly destroys a femanazi with a serious hearing disability. She spends half the debate experiencing cognitive dissonance. One almost feels compassion for the mental midget the professor is shamelessly toying with. If you are unfamiliar with Jordan Peterson, he is well worth checking out. ◄Dave►

I have long been disturbed by a growing problem in our Republic that I am yet unable to describe clearly. Despite this, I will try:

A growing number of progressives, aided and abetted by the lame-stream-media, are now openly admitting that they are trying every trick in the book to unseat a duly elected President who, despite an ongoing farce of a special counsel, has no evidence against him of any manner of impeachable offense. Indeed, this President (whom I did not support and did not vote for) seems to be doing a reasonable job of “making America great again”. For sure, I could use more swamp draining and less half-cocked tweeting but, I guess you take the best you can get in lieu of the impossibility of perfection. At least the economy is growing, ISIS is shrinking and the rest of the world is beginning to take us seriously again.

To my tired old brain, what is going on looks like nothing less than a concerted attempt to bring down a duly constituted government. My quandary is that I am unable to interpret this as anything less than a form of high treason. For sure, our Constitution prohibits the overthrow of our government “by violence” and one might argue that the progressive traitors, with the possible exception of Antifa, have not yet resorted to outright violence. Or have they? An age old adage holds that “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Since we all recognize the sword as a potential instrument of violence, does this old adage not suggest that the pen (read the “media”) is an even more potentially violent instrument? Current events sure indicate to me that it can.

The real gnawing question then is this… why are the majority of Americans, who are most surely NOT progressive traitors, willing to sit quietly by (well – except for Tucker Carlson) and let these traitors do as they wish to destroy our Republic? Arms sales have been at all time highs for several years now so it is not as if we are not armed. What is it then that we lack? Could it be as simple as the lack of some credible voice to tell us that (to paraphrase Dave), it is time to start shooting the bastards?

As much as I abhor the notion of another civil war, that is much better than a quiet surrender. Are American patriots of the 21st century fated to be like the Jews of Europe in the 1930’s, apparently willing to be herded then slaughtered like so many sheep?

If we allow this President to forced from office, ultimately to be replaced by another traitor like the Obamanation (yes, he repeatedly and openly gave aid and comfort to radical Islamists, a declared enemy of this Republic), then it is all over but the rounding up, etc.

I am currently reading (and enjoying) Brian Kilmeade’s book Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans. What a different people we were then! And could be again with so little effort.

Wake up America and do your duty to your Constitution and your Republic!

Troy L Robinson