By Chris Rossini
Imagine taking a walk down your street, and as you pass each of your neighbors houses, you ask yourself, "How much control do I have over what is going on in that house?" The same answer should pop into your mind as you pass each house, "None. Zero. Zilch. Every person in every house controls him or herself." Now, imagine going into each of the houses, and telling everyone that lives there: "You know, everyone in this house should be eating fake meat." What kind of reaction do you think you'd get? What kind of expletives would immediately hit you as you're thrown out of each house? Who are you to say what anyone else eats? Now let's think bigger than your neighborhood. Let's take a plane ride across the pond to Europe. You find an authentic pub in Germany, walk in and get everyone's attention. You tell everyone: "You know, everyone in here, as well as in the rest of the Germany, should be eating fake meat." 100% fake meat for every German. No takers. So you take another long plane ride to Japan, and give them your fake meat pitch too. Again, no dice. At which point would you do some self-reflection and ask yourself: "What the heck am I doing here?" Where do you get the audacity to tell to others what they should be eating? Well, apparently Bill Gates has the audacity, and his ideas are constantly being thrown in our faces by the controlled media. He recently said that rich nations should all be eating 100% fake meat. Now you may think to yourself, "Why are we even bothering discussing something like this? The chances of this happening are as close to zero as you can get." True. But here's the problem. It's in the attempt to implement ridiculous ideas, especially with the force of government, that lots of damage can be done. Just look at what has been done by governments in response to a virus. They've created unimaginable amounts of heartache that will reverberate for the rest of our lives. That's where the problem comes in with ridiculous ideas -- the attempt to implement them with government force. Ideas are a dime-a-dozen. Everyone can come up with something ridiculous. But when government force acts as the engine for implementation, watch out! Look at what happened in Communist Russia and Communist China over the last century. Absolutely ridiculous ideas animated those who were in power, and the attempt to implement those ideas ended up with the consequence of hundreds of millions dead. Yes, the ideas were not even worth discussing in any normal type of conversation. Yes, there was zero chance of them working. But, even so, unimaginable damage was done. This is why even the most ridiculous ideas must be refuted, especially when politicians are involved. They are the cats paws of the powers behind the thrones, i.e., of the people with the big bucks that have an authoritarian desire to use force against others. Ideas are the key. The antidote to ridiculous ideas is always the truth. The truth has to be spoken, again and again. Every individual controls him or herself. That's the truth. Every attempt to violate it is ridiculous.
Gazillionaire globalist Bill Gates has a new book out on how to tackle what he sees as the problem of climate change. One of his guidelines to save the planet? Give up your meat and grab a "plant-based" burger instead. 'You can get used to the taste difference,' he said in a recent interview. While such "big ideas" might normally come under some scrutiny in the media, it turns out that Gates has given something like a quarter of a billion dollars to dozens of media outlets. He also funds the "fact check" organizations who play their part getting independent voices silenced. How dangerous are billionaire authoritarians?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling for a "9/11-like commission" to look into the events around the January 6 riot at the US Capitol. GOP House Members have sent her a list of pertinent questions, including about her role in ensuring or undermining Capitol security on that day. Will this commission actually look to uncover truth, or like most commissions will it strive to sweep truth under the rug? Or will the commission just be an extended "trial" of Trump and his supporters after the failure of the two impeachment trials?
The Lincoln Project was founded by a group of "never-Trump" Republicans, including the former presidential campaign manager of John McCain. While the anti-Trump "resistance" types wrote big checks, the Lincoln Project founders banked big bucks for themselves. Some of the founders did even more repulsive things. Is this a singular scandal or is this just business as usual for the grifter class that exists alongside big-spending political campaigns? Also today: Newsom and Cuomo both in trouble; McConnell - what did he say?
The century-old big government obsession in America is getting old and weathered. Debts that are never-ending...Wars that are never-ending...One Federal Reserve economic bubble after another...Social-Cultural manias...All are coming to a head at some point. Big Government is always unsustainable, and Americans should once again embrace their roots of individual liberty.
According to the Miami Herald, the Biden Administration is considering imposing travel restrictions on some states, including Florida, to combat what it claims is the spread of "mutated" coronavirus. Is this science...or politics? Also today: Newsom recall effort passes milestone; Doctors concerned about blood disorder cropping up; Who wanted the lockdowns?
Proving that nothing really substantive changes in Washington, the Biden Administration announced this week that it would continue to seek the extradition of Julian Assange, who faces 17 counts of espionage in the US. Also today, the Biden Administration continues his predecessor's saber-rattling in the South China Sea. Tampa update with a twist. Social media...or government media?
By Chris Rossini
Let's say a friend approaches you and says, "We really need to fight what is going on right now. We need to fight this belief that 2+2=5." You respond that 2+2 never has, and never will, equal 5. What is there to fight? It's not real. How do you fight something that isn't real? And why stop there? 2+2 doesn't equal 55 either...or 555...or 5 million... Must we fight those too? Isn't the "fight" over at the moment that you acknowledge, accept and believe that 2+2 always has, and always will, equal 4? You've won! There's nothing to fight. But your friend replies, "No, you don't understand what I mean. That person believes that 2+2=5. We need to fight and punish that person." To which you reply, "No, it is you that doesn't understand. That person is already punishing himself. He's decided to believe in the unreal and the untrue. He is deluding himself and has sentenced himself to a life of frustration." This is a world of free individuals. We have the power to seek the truth and live by it, or we can create our own delusions and struggle every day because reality will never match up with our delusions. This is an inside game that we all play. The life and experiences of the person who accepts and lives by 2+2=4 will be very different from the experiences of the person who insists that 2+2=5. Fortunately, since we are free, we can always change our minds. Someone who once fervently believed that 2+2=5 can right his own ship. He can let go of the unreal and embrace the real. Usually, this change occurs when he hits rock bottom and the pain of hanging on to the unreal becomes just too great to bear anymore. But it doesn't have to be that way. He can avoid rock bottom and change his mind right now. But it's 100% up to him! There's no reason to "fight" him. He's in this fight with himself. Furthermore, instead of looking for a "fight" with someone else who is in error, it would be much wiser to root out our own errors. Perhaps we don't have a problem with 2+2=4, but since no one is perfect, we certainly have a problem somewhere else. Best we focus on righting our own ships instead of trying to take the wheel of someone else's. Your friend sees the logic, and starts to get it. But he's still not satisfied. He says, "Ok, so we don't have to 'fight' that person. But what can we do? I'm not the type of person that can just sit around and watch people follow each other off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. What can we do to help?" You reply with one word: "Speak." "Speak what?" he replies. "Speak the truth. Explain to people, in the best way that you can, that 2+2=4 and there's no way around it." "But other people can be really nasty and mean," he says. Yes, most will call you names. That seems to be the default response. When you speak to 10 people, 8 of them will call you some kind of name. So be it. Let them go on their way. Your great interest is in the 2 out of 10 that are open to new ideas. Those are 'the fish' that you're interested in catching each time that you speak. When you go fishing, do you focus on the fish that you catch, or the fish that you didn't catch? You focus on the catch! Maybe you even take a picture with it, and message it to your friends! You don't even think about all the fish that swam right passed your hook. They went on their own way. Let's say you use the technology that is at your disposal, and you reach 100 people. Yes, 80 will give you a nasty and snarky reply. They'll find a way to laugh at you. But your interest is in the 20 that nod in agreement with you. What if 1 of those 20 that you reach is a high-powered CEO who has the reach of 100,000 employees and (thanks to you) starts to weave in the truth when he speaks to them? Out of 100,000 he picks up 20,000 that nod in agreement. Your speaking the truth has now led to it being spoken to 20,000 people! Hopefully you can see why George Washington said: "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." This is how the truth prevails. This is how Liberty, since it is the truth, must prevail. You don't 'fight' that which doesn't exist and isn't real. You speak that which is real and true to as many people as you can. The rest will take care of itself.
This week marks the first 12 month period in two decades in which there have been no US combat deaths in Afghanistan. The Trump Administration signed an agreement for complete withdrawal by May if the Taliban ends attacks. Will Biden stick to the deal? Also today: Florida update and more...
By Ron Paul
The Senate trial for now twice-impeached former President Donald Trump is set to begin this week, with little doubt over the outcome. A procedural vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of “removing from office” someone who is not in office revealed that nowhere near enough Republicans were willing to join their Democrat counterparts in voting to convict. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is required by the Constitution to preside, has by refusing to participate made it clear that he does not consider the upcoming action in the Senate to be a legitimate impeachment trial. So if it is not a legitimate trial, what is it, then? Judging from the House impeachment resolution, it looks more like a banana republic “show trial” than a careful case detailing Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled US House for “incitement of insurrection” over the January 6th melee at the US Capitol. Telling his supporters they must fight or they’re “not going to have a country any more” was cited in the impeachment resolution as evidence that Trump “gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government” and has “demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.” Trump also told them to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” to encourage Congress to consider his claims of election fraud, but Democrats in the House say that he didn’t really mean it. Why the snap impeachment? Why not, as Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has written, hold hearings and call witnesses to explore whether the former president actually had insurrection on his mind? Did he call off or delay the National Guard troops from protecting the Capitol, for example? Or was he simply using heated political rhetoric that his accusers in Congress have also used plenty of times? Weeks of hearings in the House with dozens of witnesses could have helped make the case for the Senate that Trump was guilty of inciting insurrection. Such hearings could have turned the tide against Trump in the Senate, where he is certainly not universally supported within his own party. But the House had no interest in such hearings. They wanted a snap impeachment. They wanted no witnesses. They wanted to benefit from the universal mainstream media narrative that the mob who entered the Capitol building was not just unruly Americans angry over what they believed was a rigged election, but was actually trying to overthrow the government to keep Trump in power. The House Democrats knew that the “insurrection” narrative would not stand the test of time – anyone familiar with “color revolutions” or coups overseas would easily recognize that this was not one. So they rushed through the impeachment not because they wanted to remove him from an office he no longer occupied, but because they wanted to bar him from ever running for office again. It does raise the question: what are they afraid of? They called their impeachment a victory for democracy, but isn’t preventing Trump from running again a subversion of democracy? Trump would do well to ignore the Senate proceedings. There is no reason to participate in a show trial. The media has reported that he intends to focus on the “stolen” election in his defense before the Senate. That would be counterproductive. The right question to ask is, “what if they held a show trial and nobody came”? |
Archives
September 2024
 
 
 
 
|
RSS Feed