You won't like this opinion -- I guarantee it.
Nonetheless its true.
Why did the King, in days of old, get out in front of his troops on his horse, with his superior barding and the best of swords? Why didn't he go hide in his castle while his army prosecuted the war?
He didn't do that out of valor.
He did it because he knew that if his army lost the other side would come to his rather-obvious place (its not like you can hide a castle!), kill him and every other person in his family line except perhaps the women and girls who would be raped and forced to bear the children of those who vanquished him.
He thus had every reason to do everything he could to prevent that, and if he was going to lose he might as well lose big right up front because the outcome for everyone else was not in doubt.
This also meant he didn't go to war in the first place unless he really had to because while you might have numerical and tactical superiority things go wrong in a war as soon as the first shot, sword or arrow is loosed. Your intelligence gathering can be wrong, you can be flanked, the other side may have allies you don't know about or just plain old-fashioned bad luck, such as weather, can screw you and there's nothing you can do about any of that.
You want less war?
Then advocate for and accept that everyone on either side, especially any politician but also including all civilians are always and everywhere legitimate targets of the other side. Fuck the laws of war and fuck anyone who says otherwise.
There has never been a war where civilians are not absolutely responsible for the waging of said war. Even in times of old the horse had to be fed as did the soldier, the armor, arrows and swords had to be made, the ore or trees had to be dug, harvested, forged and worked, the tents and mess kit had to be created, maintained and tended and so on.
Every bullet, missile, bomb, tank, airplane, drone, communications device and similar in a modern military action was created and assembled by civilians either in whole or part. Exactly zero tanks, planes or ships move a single millimeter without fuel, lubricants and parts and all of that is created by civilian infrastructure.
Every single one of those firms in the modern world is funded and operates as a result of the capital markets so each and every banker, every single institution of such and similar are all personally liable and responsible for each and every single act of war in every single case.
Every single person on both sides and any entity or nation that supplies them, every institution and especially every politician and all of their family members and property are all legitimate military targets when a conflict is underway in each and every case.
Would Biden and Congress commit funds and equipment to Ukraine if it was clearly understood that the Russians would consider every one of them, and their children and spouses along with their property to be legitimate military targets and if spies or other infiltrators could get into the United States they would be targeted and destroyed?
Would we have had an open border with Mexico for the last three years if this was the consequence of our involvement?
Would any of this have happened in the first place if back in 2014 McCain's entire family was slaughtered like pigs and all their homes and property burnt to ash for his advocacy ON THE GROUND at Maidan by members of the losing side who infiltrated (or worse, were already present) in the United States?
Is there anything wrong with Russia finding a way to get people into the United States and burning Zelenskyy's property here in the US? No. He is the chief belligerent in that conflict just like Putin is so yes, if the other side can do the same thing to Putin, well, that's the price of war.
You want less war then you want much more of this.
Today not one single member of the House, not one single member of the Executive, not one single executive in the Defense Industry or banking system fears being tied up, forced to watch their spouse and children be raped and/or murdered and then executed themselves with all their property burnt to ash.
Yet that was the penalty in days of old when you lost -- and often before you lost, if things went poorly and they could get to you.
The acts and decisions of old weren't really about "noble choices"; that is a convenient fantasy run in tales of old.
Knights and Kings of old in fact did what they did simply because they understood the risk and thus only if it was worth it did you undertake the action of going to war in the first place. Sometimes you had to -- you judged that indeed it was worth it -- and thus you did so, damn the consequences.
War is as old as humankind and that will never change.
But what we can change is to force skin back into the game for those who actually are responsible for the capacity and actual waging of war by advocating for and fully understanding that if you commit to war that is the potential price for each and every person in the society involved and if that's not acceptable then you stop the government from waging said war no matter the personal cost since every single person can only die once, you will die anyway if you refuse to act and thus you might as well die for a just cause rather than an unjust one.
There were about 3.6 million babies born in 2023, or 54.4 live births for every 1,000 females ages 15 to 44, according to provisional data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
You can look at this however you'd like but there is an underlying and very-seriously negative problem in here that nobody wants to acknowledge: If we do not address not only the rate but the balance of who's having kids and what they're inculcating in those kids we're screwed, and we do not have years or decades to do it either.
Simply put only the productive children -- that is, those who grow up and then produce more than they consume can keep a society going. Some percentage of children are never going to be productive and for those who are unproductive simply due to bad luck its not their fault nor that of their parents -- fortune just is that way, and a just society doesn't treat them like a deformed puppy and cull them.
But you cannot make up for the lack of said productive children in your society by throwing open the borders and inviting "everyone" in. Those who come here with their first act as a criminal one are demonstrably unfit right up front to fit into a social order that has "law-abiding" as any part of its requirement. Oh sure, some will change their minds but their general mental position, which is "screw the law, I want mine" is not one you can permit on a mass-basis if you want to have a society at all.
There's an "interview" going around of a Biden advisor tying himself in knots verbally trying to explain the entire premise of government finance. He makes the often-repeated claim that the government cannot go bankrupt because it can "print money."
Nobody can print money. Not the government, not industry, not banks, not The Fed nor you. NOT EVEN GOD can print money because money is the outcome of productive activity by humans.
But anyone can emit credit. The only requirement to do that is the capacity to find someone else who believes you will produce something of value later worth at least as much as what is lent. That's it. You do it when you take a mortgage to buy a house or take out a loan to buy a car. I do it when I take my Discover card out of my wallet to buy gasoline. In days of old many taverns allowed you to do it for a drink, writing your name down and how many drinks you'd consumed. They did that because they believed you would come settle the tab come payday, which you got in exchange for performing actual work of value for someone.
Today this is almost-all abstracted through a third party of some sort but the bottom line hasn't changed. The same thing is true at a local, state or national level but of course the Federal Government (and State governments) are "more believed" than you as an individual because the Federal Government can tax you and nearly everyone pays those taxes without having to having to be threatened with being jailed or shot first. That is in virtually every case you file and pay your taxes and for most they're withheld automatically so its actually somewhat of a pain in the ass not to pay. This is the premise on which the government can issue bonds and thus borrow.
The abstraction layer, with you whipping out a credit card or the government issuing bonds, makes it all appear to be some sort of magic. It is not. The clowns running the "MMT" scam are lying and they know it, as I demonstrated on Lauren Lister's show quite-adequately in a two-up debate on air over a decade back, and for anyone who wants to take me on in this regard -- I'm up for a rematch anywhere, anytime, in any forum. The truth is no different than the tavern 100 years ago. You can print the credit for that drink because the owner of the bar believes you'll pay, and while he knows a few people won't because they can't the loss is small enough that he can absorb the occasional deadbeat and remain in business, and by allowing you to emit that credit you spend more than if you would have had to save it first.
In short money and credit both spend the same but they are not the same and governments can never create money because government is, by definition, a consumer of resources to provide common goods and services. Government does not produce; it provides necessary functions (e.g. collective security, otherwise known as a "military") by distributing the production of individuals.
As you shift the percentage of people who will earn the money (by performing a useful task for someone at less renumeration than its value, which is of course necessary because otherwise they'd be stupid to hire you) toward those who do not and will not the percentage of losses goes up. But this is not instantly apparent -- well, not unless you look, and in fact we do look and its reported all the time.
The national debt exists because there are more freeloaders in greater size than there are producers who provide more value than they extract. As with all exponential functions this looks like a free lunch when you start but if you don't cut it out the end is always disaster as the system in question collapses. That this will occur if you keep at it is mathematical fact and mathematics are never false nor can they be voted upon or changed by political whim.
To fix this you have to change the incentives.
You have to cut off the freeloaders -- all who do not produce more than they consume -- and, those who are not citizens must be forced to leave -- right here, right now.
You have to incentivize citizens to form stable, bonded heterosexual pairs that, with only one of them working and the other raising children can do so with an economic surplus and demonstrate that such a surplus is possible to obtain in such a system so their children see that from their first moment of sentience forward. No, not everyone will succeed, but a critical fraction must succeed because you must inculcate that in the next generation or you get the degenerate behavior we have now. This in turn means that the cost of assets to do so must have their speculative premium reduced or entirely eliminated and thus collapse in price. Yes, this means houses and other living units for openers.
If you demonstrate to children that you can blow up a two-parent home with kids and fuck up everyone's life for your own adult perversions, whatever they might be, why would those children go down that road when they don't believe it will work out? Yes, some people do willingly smash their finger with a hammer, but a logical person calls such an individual mentally incompetent because they are!
In addition we had better roll back all of the things we've changed in terms of what go into children that have produced a fifteen percent educational disability rate. That is either real and we did it and had better stop it right now under penalty of death for those who have and are doing it or its false and we're screwing both the kids and the parents -- and in the latter setting the example that your odds of being bankrupted by having a child are roughly one in seven! Any middle-class couple would be nuts to produce kids with that set of odds and especially to have a second one when that second child has a one in seven chance of screwing not just the adults but the existing normal child!
There is no simple, one-answer prescription for all of this but all of these issues must be addressed right here, right now, with no excuses accepted. The idea that banning abortion, for example, will "do it" is functionally insane. A woman who chooses to abort a child obviously is in a position where she believes that having said child is a bad decision. The "cheap and easy" answer is "ban the procedure" where the real problem is that you don't want to fix the underlying reason she thinks having the kid is a bad decision.
Well, here we are with a wide-open border and a crap-ton of people coming in -- and what's worse is that the vast majority of those currently having kids -- including those coming here through said open border are in fact not productive beyond their consumption and proof of this is found in the wildly-escalating National Debt.
We don't have 10, 20 or 30 years to reverse this.
We must reverse it right now because it takes about 20 years to grow a human from conception to adulthood and if we don't reverse it now there will be no ability to keep this crap up long enough to reverse what is about to happen at all.
We seem to have a view that courts, including the Supreme Court, have some delegated power to decide the Constitutionality of an action.
That's false, and in fact the Federal Court system itself admits they made it up.
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Note clearly what they admit: They invented that as a "doctrine" in 1803; no component of the Constitution actually granted such a power.
Article VI establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. Nowhere is there an exception or "wordsmithing" allowed -- that is, no matter what some court might say, the Constitution, being Supreme, is declarative.
For instance the entire claimed "authority" to search communications of Americans without a warrant under FISA is per-se unconstitutional because the 4th Amendment contains no exceptions -- not for terrorism or any other reason, including even an active war.
It does not matter what Congress passes or the Supremes say: That law is void, period.
Now of course they will be happy to try to throw you in prison for it, but the fact remains that its void.
We, the people, are the ones charged with enforcement because per the Constitution any power not delegated to the Federal Government is held by the States or the People, depending on whether same would be constructed against one or the other.
The 14th Amendment incorporated the entirety of the Constitution against the States, which until that time had no such requirement; that is, a State could, until that time, under its own Constitution search without a warrant. That went away in 1869.
Indeed of the Constitution's protections only habeas corpus can be suspended (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) -- there is no other right that is held by the people that can abrogated by a mere act of Congress.
Yet here we are.
We have both "laws" that are wildly in violation of the Constitution (virtually all gun constraints other than those on interstate commerce, which is a delegated federal power), FISA and similar as it applies to "general warrants" or even warrantless searches which violate the 4th Amendment and blatant and outrageous refusal to execute existing laws whenever it suits the administration or Department of Justice's whims (e.g. 8 USC 1324 on illegal immigrants, 15 USC Ch 1 against virtually every medical and pharmaceutical provider in the nation and more) never mind the just-heard case of Sarbox being "uniquely" applied intentionally out-of-scope (on which I have a separate article.)
None of that is Constitutional and no decision of any court, including the Supremes, can make it so. Indeed the 14th Amendment makes clear that unequal prosecution, which many defend as a "right of discretion" does not exist and that such an agency and all their employees are in fact committing felonies in each and every case which they willingly refuse to prosecute.
The last thirty or so years have shown conclusively that the Supremes are part of that problem -- but its not really their fault because they never had the power in the first place when it came to whether something is within the black letters of the page in the Constitution -- we did and still do.
The question becomes this: Are we willing to enforce it, or are we going to sit back and let our nation be overrun by scams and invaders as we have for the last three decades to the point that our entire economy and political system collapses?
.... and an employer?
You do remember your financial rape of people who refused your forced needle rape, right? You know, surcharging their health care through employers when the employee refused the jabs?
By the way we now know that if you took the jabs you are the ones who have increased risk of cancer and other serious immune-related trouble, so where are the surcharges for those employees and why hasn't the previous one, which was exactly backward, been refunded in full along with 5% compound interest?
Oh, you don't think you should have to do that, and yeah, legally perhaps you don't.
But now you expect employees to be "loyal" and put forward a sincere effort for you?
I don't think so.
Oh, it was someone else's (e.g. an insurance company's) fault? Who chose the employer's health company? You did, so go fuck yourself as its your fault, not theirs.
I'm sure you'll also tell me all about how inflation is the employees problem too while you feasted on interest rates below the rate of inflation to pump up your stock or other asset prices and bonused that out to executives -- and employees got none of that or, in some cases, some paltry piece of it like a puny little match on their 401k. Your cash is safe in your wallet as you've executed your "planned sales" while theirs is confined to your stock price which is now likely to crash and wipe out said funds.
How about all the PPP "loans"? Even better, how about the program that refunded payroll tax deposits to you which only happened because the person was employed and you took all of that money for yourself despite that effectively being the employees' money which you should have refunded back to them.
Oh, you think not?
So now you get to feast on a government policy that causes, directly, the inflation we have seen and keep it all for yourself even though every penny of it was generated by an employee who dutifully showed up for work and did their job. Rather than refund that back to them to mitigate the inflationary cost of said program you pocketed it and essentially bent them over the table and financially raped them up the ass.
How about all those who took the shots under your mandate and got fucked? Have you covered their insurance deductibles and lifetime medical costs that would otherwise not have happened at all? I've not heard of one company doing that. Why not? Is it because you're all assholes?
Now you want people to do more than show up and punch the clock, realigning their work efforts to meet their minimum actual needs and, beyond that, telling you to go fuck goats?
Yeah, good luck with that assholes -- it will be a generation or more before this change in attitude can be reversed other than by you admitting you have been screwing your employees and making full restitution with interest because otherwise all those who you fucked will have to die first.
In my view as a former CEO you deserve every single bit of this.
Here you go folks.
They knew they were worthless in anyone who had previously been infected. They knew because they tried to infect people who had previously been infected, on purpose, and failed.
The first participants got the same tiny dose of the ‘ancestral’ SARS-CoV-2 strain as did those in the first trial. When nobody developed a sustained infection, the researchers increased the dose by more and more in subsequent groups of participants, until they reached a level 10,000 times the initial dose. A few volunteers developed short-lived infections, but these quickly vanished.
“We were quite surprised,” says Susan Jackson, a study clinician at Oxford and co-author of the latest study. “Moving forward, if you want a COVID challenge study, you’re going to have to find a dose that infects people.”
None of these idiots realized why the size of the dose was irrelevant either but basic mathematics tells you why as I have repeatedly pointed out all the way back to the beginning. A virus is an exponentially replicating thing. That is, if the first viron "gets" you (that is, you're successfully infected) then the next "turn" by that viron is now 1,000, 10,000 or even more copies! So if you go from 10 virons trying to infect someone to 10,000 virons the odds are you get the exact same result.
That is, any dose in excess of the minimum infective dose produces the same result and this, incidentally, is why masks are worthless unless they can prevent the minimum dose from reaching you -- which they cannot in the general population as to be 100% effective proper protocol must be followed 100% of the time. Once you exceed the minimum dose you are infected and whether its that small dose or a much larger one the outcome is the same.
But what they studies irrefutably proved, and I remind you this is only being published now, is that the jabs were completely worthless in anyone who previously had and recovered from Covid. If you could not infect any of these participants at a clinical level with even enormous doses that would amount to sucking snot out of an infected person's nose then there was no benefit possible for the person to take such a shot under any set of circumstances.
While someone who had never been infected might have gotten a benefit from said injections anyone previously infected could not benefit because there was nothing to prevent; they were not going to get it again anyway.
To those who now have gotten it two, three or five times and took the shots the bottom line is that you screwed yourself; the evidence is quite-clear that you taking the shot caused you to be able to be infected again which would not have happened if you didn't take them.
This by the way was something I pointed out -- despite licking doorknobs I got the virus exactly once. Yes, it was bad, but I had just suffered a severe immune challenge due to a yellowjacket swarm (no idea how many stings I took as it was impossible to count them) without which I doubt I would have been seriously ill at all.
But in the years since despite all but licking doorknobs I've not gotten it again and the only thing different is that I also refused all shots.
You fucked yourself if you took them and if you were conned into it and have been repeatedly ill please explain in the comments below why you haven't gone and taken full retribution against every single person who advocated for and dispensed them to you which, we now know by published science, was a completely worthless thing for you to do as even when they deliberately tried to reinfect people with huge doses of the virus they were unable to do so.
Further they knew this in early 2021 and just now published the results so this knowledge -- that if you'd had Covid you were at statistically-zero risk and could not benefit -- was deliberately withheld from you and everyone else.
Its not a theory anymore -- it is now proved scientific fact -- so now, given the facts on the table, your failure to take personal retribution against everyone involved in this crap comes down to you being either a masochist or a sniveling pussy.