The REAL Reason the Left Wants "Gun Control"

You have heard all the rhetoric - from both sides - as to why we need more gun controls, or why we do not. What you have NOT heard is the real reason those on the left want more gun control.

To begin, understand that the left has always used the "Overton Window" strategy to get their way. You can think of it as getting to the (moving) goal post incrementally. They want the legalization of drugs, so they start with fighting for something so innocuous as "decriminalization", then moving to "medicinal use", and now to recreational use. With that in mind, make no mistake - "gun controls" are just the first step in their very real quest to do away with our right to own and bear arms. They want to take our guns. Period. And there is plenty of proof if you doubt this.

But the real question is: WHY?

Here's why - the radical left plans on being in control of Congress and the White House again someday. And when that day comes, they intend to put through their radical, socialist agenda. We know this because they tell us that is their goal. Most people are aware of that. But what many may not be aware of is that they play a "long game". They realize that pushing through their socialist agenda, to achieve more - and permanent - power for themselves, it would very likely start a civil war - a SHOOTING war - as millions of Americans will fight to the death to preserve the Constitution and our freedoms. They know that millions of citizens will take arms against ANY government that tries to take away their guns and push through socialism.

And the left knows that the only way they can retain their control, permanently, is to disarm the opponents. Without weapons, We, the People would not be able to stand against the full power of a government that is under the left's control.

They plan a coup. They want complete and permanent control. But they could never achieve it as long as millions of everyday citizens have guns.

Sure, you could say this is a "conspiracy theory". But if you research the things powerful people on the left have actually been saying and doing, it becomes all to clear that this is reality. For example, at a town hall meeting in Keene NH in October 2015, Hillary Clinton said that a mandatory gun buyback program is something “worth looking at,” referring to Australia’s firearms confiscation programs in 1996 and 2003, which collected roughly 700,000 banned semiautomatic rifles and other firearms. And SHE was almost elected president!

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps - but unlikely!

How To Create A Mass Murderer

Although gun ownership is way up, but shooting deaths are down in comparison, there is a lot of angst and the wringing of hands when some unstable person goes on a shooting spree. And in the midst of this, people seem to be at a loss as to what we can do to put a cork in it. And that is what perplexes me - people seem unable to grasp that it is a waste of time trying to to fix the problem by RE-acting instead of by acting.

Before we can  figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?

The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.

If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.

The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.

Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.

Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.

To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.

And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials  say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?

Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.

Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.

And just how do we do that? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.

Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do so, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.

/

Twitter - Internet Cancer

"Your account has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules.
Specifically for:
Violating our rules against hateful conduct.
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."
That was the message I received. And here is the tweet that they say threatens, or harrasses based on race, ethnicity etc.... 
 
"Rusty K
@chelseahandler calls Sarah Huckabee Sanders a "trollop" for wearing make-up. Hey, Handler, if make-up makes one a trollop, then you lead the pack. Look in a mirror, bimbo"

Now here is the challenge: Can ANYONE find ANYTHING in that tweet that is based on ANY of those criterion? Race? Ethnicity? National Origin? Sexual Orientation? Gender? Gender Identity? Religious Affiliation? Age? Disability? Serious  Disease?

Let's see - here is how the dictionary defines "bimbo":




[ˈbimbō]
NOUN
    an attractive but unintelligent OR frivolous young woman

Point made.



Handler can call Huckabee-Sanders a trollop, and Twitter says that's just fine. But let someone call Handler a bimbo, and the Twitter censors go nuts. Why? Because Sanders is a conservative, and Handler is a liberal.

Is there ANY threat of ANY kind?

The answer to all is a resounding "NO". So, what is REALLY going on here?

In the news it has been reported that the anti-American radicals at Twitter have been systematically locking and/or deleting the accounts of CONSERVATIVES. If you doubt this, check it out at https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/twitter-targets-conservatives-with-none-of-a-publishers-responsibilities/. At one point they even deleted the President's account. And Twitter has been using dubious (to say the least) excuses for their purge of conservative thought, much the same as Berkley U. has beeen doing the same.

Everyone knows that Twitter is populated primarily by what is known as "trolls" - radical, hateful nuts who use Twitter to attack conservatives on every minute issue, right down to what shoes Melania wore. And Twitter has yet to lock any of them out. But when a far-left radical like Chelsea Handler publicly calls a conservative woman like Sarah Sanders a "trollop" (which is not only hateful, but slanderous), Twitter turns a blind eye, but locks the account of those who call her out for her disgusting rhetoric.

It's a fairly well-known fact that Twitter is extremely damaging to society as a whole, as it provides a platform for the real haters and cancers to spread their vile agenda, and far too many ignorant people take it all in as if it were God's own words. And it is sick that so many in the mainstream media actually get their news from these anonymous Twitter trolls that live in mommy's basement.

Perhaps the time has come for We, the People, to boycott Twitter and stop using it, and to stop reading it.

   

They're Looking At Health Care All Wrong

Politicians and pundits on all sides are looking at health care costs all wrong. They are all focused on INSURANCE, and not the cost of the health care, itself.  If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them.

Let's begin with the most obvious issue. First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and perservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.

And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.

Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exhorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe.

To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists.

Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. As it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting to that eventual determination.

Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.

As a  final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more. And that is the only type of insurance that should be subsidized by the government (with the exception of Medicare and general health care for the poor - Medicaid)

Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many  people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.

/

Memory Loss - Can It Be Overcome?

Having reached old age, I find that certain memories are getting difficult to bring forward when I want them. I see a movie star from the 40's or 50's whose name I know as well as my own, yet struggle to recall it (though eventually I do). Or I get up from the couch to go to the kitchen, and before getting there I have forgotten why I was going, though eventually, and with a struggle I do recall the reason.

I have a theory, and if the theory is true we might be able to overcome much "memory loss". Because in cases like these, the memories are not really lost - eventually they can be brought to mind.

The brain is a powerful and complex "natural computer". And I think, like a computer, as it becomes cluttered with vast amounts of input, it becomes less efficient; slower, and could even crash. So when a person reaches their elder years, the brain has amassed a vast amount of input - every little thing you have ever heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or learned. The brain becomes a bit cluttered, and, in order to protect its host (us) it stores unnecessary memories "in the attic" much as a computer might compress files to make room for necessary functions. If there is no need to recall Burt Lancaster's name, it gets stored and becomes difficult to unlock.

OK, if this theory has any basis in fact, and the brain puts certain info into a storage unit, then all we should need is access to the storage area, on demand. A way to unlock the memory closet. A key.

I don't think there is any technology (yet) that is capable of doing that, but perhaps the brain, itself, can provide the answer. I can't help but wonder if we could use hypnosis to convince the brain to provide access to the "attic" by use of a "password", just like a computer. For example, under hypnosis it might be suggested that any time you have trouble recalling a name, event etc. that by consciously saying "eureka", or thinking of a specific image, such as a babbling brook, that the brain would recognize that as a key, allowing access to the dusty, cob-webbed attic

I am going to try and find a good hypnotist, and try it on myself. If anyone else who reads this should also try it, please let me know the results.

Of course, this all rests upon whether or not I REMEMBER to find a hypnotist...

Sen. Warren's Insane Tax Proposal

Just when I thought I had heard every moronic attack on capitalism, leave it to Senator Warren to top them all - even Ocasio-Cortez.

As president, Ms Warren wants to institute a "Wealth Tax". For those who think, "Great - the wealthy will pay", think again. A wealth tax means the IRS would assess YOUR wealth every year, and tax you on it. Everything you own, personal or business, would be taxed again and again, year after year, UNTIL IT IS GONE!

Just one small example: you are 25 and have $10,000 in the stock market, or in cash, or equity in your home - whatever. You pay incomes tax on it when you earn it. Then, every year, the government taxes you on it yet again. At even a 2% tax rate, that's $200 per year. By the time you retire, it's GONE your cash, your investments, your home, your business...

But she gets even crazier. She wants to also institute an "Exit Tax". If you decide that either you want to leave the country in order gain more favorable tax treatment (or for ANY reason), the government would confiscate 40% of your entire wealth as punishment. That is in addition to the income taxes and wealth taxes you have already paid! You would leave as a pauper.

Senator Warren should just come out and be honest - she wants the government to own everything. And if that ever happens, we have seen what the result would be, in feudal England, where the king and the Lords owned everything, and the masses were merely pawns, living and dying at the mercy of the "overlords".

Everyone should understand this one important and irrevocable fact - whenever an entity gains power, other entities must lose it, just like in a poker game. The more power the government has over us, the less power we have over ourselves. And with the loss of power comes the loss of liberty. If government power continues to grow, kiss your freedoms good-bye.

We have already lost much of our freedom. Can you build a needed addition on your home without government permission (zoning)? We can't even grow certain crops for our own use without permission of the Commerce department. And if your community wants to take your property and give it to someone else who will improve it and pay more taxes, they can now do so. Can you pray in a public place? Can you own and carry a firearm wherever you go? We have lost a tremendous amount of freedom since March 4, 1789 when the Constitution became the law of the land.

If America is to remain the land of the free, it must remain the home of the brave - those who will fight people like Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, Bloomberg and any other little tyrant who wants to destroy it by granting more power to the government.

/