"Feelings...Nothing More Then Feelings"

 I have commented quite a few times especially during the 2024 election cycle, all the democrats had was "HATE Trump" or "ORANGEMANBAD" or variations along that line.  I and people that believe like me have been called "Nazi" by people that know not that that word actually is.

But their University professors told them one thing and by Gaia, they are right.   After a while we get to a stage where we flat out don't care, don't want to be nice or want to get along and deal with those screeching moonbats.  I am not a spring chicken, I am a very summer chicken, approaching fall and I no longer have patience anymore, and I have a gut feeling a huge portion of the population, their cup runneth over and their patience is gone also.

    I shamelessly clipped this from Farcebook and Michael Smith.

I’ve been thinking about the intractability of American politics and whether the rift can ever truly be healed. I began to wonder if I wasn’t seeing something because I was looking at it from the wrong perspective. For years, I assumed the division was primarily ideological—policy disputes about taxes, regulation, foreign policy, culture. That would at least be manageable, but the more I’ve watched the past decade unfold, the more I’ve come to suspect that what divides us is not policy at all—it is all about “feeling.”

More specifically, it is feeling about Donald Trump.

Strip away the daily outrage cycles and the social-media hysteria, and you see something striking: opposition to Trump has rarely been framed in terms of executive and legislative substance. It is not primarily about tariffs versus free trade, border enforcement levels, NATO funding formulas, or regulatory rollbacks. It is about loathing. It is aesthetic revulsion elevated to moral emergency. The man must be opposed, not because of policy detail, but because he exists and the hollow, performative screams of authoritarianism, dictator, Nazi, and racist, absent of actual proof, prove once politics becomes emotional absolutism, reconciliation becomes unlikely and nearly impossible.

Democrats are so invested in opposition—so invested in hate—that curiosity has disappeared. When an assassination attempt occurs, it is not treated as a national trauma demanding sober reflection. It becomes a footnote, an inconvenience to a preferred narrative and the media, which long ago ceased pretending to be neutral referees, oscillates between hair-on-fire apocalypse—“He is starting World War III!”—and studied indifference when events don’t serve the script. Context is dead. Everything is either the end of civilization or a “meh” moment. There is no middle register.

This isn’t journalism. It’s dramaturgy.

The Never Trump contingent—Democrats who for years masqueraded as Republicans—have fared no better. They appear like actors who missed their cue in a play that has already closed. Picking at the bones of a long-dead grift, they surface periodically to assure us that they still matter, that if only a Jeb Bush, a John Kasich, a Paul Ryan were in charge, normalcy would return. What they really want is a restoration of the polite managerial class—a GOPe technocracy that governs by consensus dinners and donor conference calls. Lovable losers.

If such a figure were president, one assumes many of today’s fiercest critics would rediscover their appreciation for “norms.” Their outrage would subside into professional disagreement, and the temperature would drop not because policy changed, but because the “vibes” did.

Which brings me to a different question: What if the paradigm has already shifted?

What if America—quietly, imperfectly—has accepted that MAGA is not a passing tantrum but a realignment? What if a substantial portion of the country has decided that “America First” is not isolationism but self-respect? What if the country has already begun a turn toward something more assertive, more self-conscious about sovereignty, more comfortable with strength—yes, even more consciously masculine in tone?

There are signs.

Social media is not the real world, but it is often a bellwether. The ridicule aimed at progressive hyperbole feels sharper than it did five years ago. The reflexive hysteria that once commanded instant compliance now meets mockery. BlueSky—intended as a sanitized antidote to the free speech chaos of X—has devolved into what can only be described as a digital terrarium of grievance. Dems took the admonition to go F themselves at face value, so now it is where outrage goes to self-fertilize. It increasingly resembles an endless, unironic episode of Libs of TikTok.

The reactions to America winning gold medals at the recently completed MilanCortina Olympics, especially the patriotism of the hockey team winning the gold on the 46th anniversary of the Miracle on Ice, outed the America haters and illustrated that when your echo chamber becomes indistinguishable from parody, something has shifted.

The economy, too, tells a story. Despite relentless messaging that any recovery is insufficient, fragile, or falsely attributed, the underlying indicators have stabilized. The narrative insists that nothing counts unless perfection is instantaneous. “Why hasn’t he fixed everything yet?” becomes the refrain even though five years of market and supply chain disruption takes time to heal. The same with illegal immigration. Emotional imagery dominates headlines and enforcement is framed as cruelty—but deportations continue. Border crossings decline. Policy, imperfect and incremental, proceeds beneath the noise.

This suggests something uncomfortable for the opposition: governance is happening—and if governance continues while hysteria escalates, the hysteria begins to look performative. Voters may disagree with tone, style, or rhetoric—but they can see results. Over time, results dull outrage.

That may be the key to understanding the present moment. The rift cannot be healed so long as one side defines its identity entirely in opposition to a man rather than engagement with reality. But if reality keeps intruding—if jobs return, if borders stabilize, if wars don’t materialize on schedule—then emotional absolutism loses oxygen and healing, if it comes, will not arrive through kumbaya gestures or bipartisan photo-ops. It will come when politics returns to policy, disagreement centers on marginal tax rates rather than existential evil, journalism rediscovers proportion, and parties compete on measurable outcomes instead of apocalyptic forecasts.

Maybe it is like a bad case of the flu. Perhaps the more accurate question is not whether America can get over it, but when the emotional fever will break. When it does, the underlying America—pragmatic, aspirational, resilient—remains.

If America has already decided it prefers self-respect to self-loathing, then the paradigm has shifted more than many in Washington are willing to admit.

"AOG Fraugster Gets Prison Sentence"

 

A couple of years ago I "Published a couple of stories" about a huge fraud that impacted the spare parts market for mostly commercial aircraft.   Well the scammer got a few years of prison for doing so.  Here is the news report from "Aviation News"   This for those Aviation nuts among us.

Credit: Sean Broderick/Aviation Week

The person behind AOG Technics, the broker that sold thousands of parts with falsified records that rendered them unairworthy, was sentenced to 56 months in prison, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said Feb. 23.

Jose Alejandro Zamora Yrala, operating from a home office, sold some 60,000 engine parts—many of them in bulk—to airlines and MRO shops from January 2019 to July 2023, investigators found.

Shipments were backed by fake authorized released certificates (ARCs) created on a home computer claiming the parts were new or overhauled, when they were not.

Zamora bolstered his scheme with emails from fake employees to some customers, the SFO found.

The ruse unraveled in mid-2023 when a TAP Air Portugal technician questioned the validity of a supposedly new CFM International CFM56 part. TAP contacted Safran, which supposedly provided the part’s accompanying ARC, and GE Aerospace, which co-own CFM.

The manufacturers confirmed the document was fake and alerted authorities.

Airlines were forced to ground aircraft with AOG parts installed. While no in-service incidents were linked to the suspect parts, the disruption cost operators an estimated $53 million, SFO said.
The SFO’s probe led Zamora to plead guilty in December 2025 to fraudulent trading.

The issue also led to the creation of Aviation Supply Chain Integrity Coalition, an independent group of industry stakeholders focused on identifying ways to reduce parts-related fraud. The group’s initial report and recommendations have helped drive interest and investment in digital records, including ARCs, and broader parts integrity validation efforts.

"Freedom of or Freedom From"

 

Yeah, I shamelessly clipped this from "Farcebook", again.  I ran across it taking a "Microbreak" if y'all know what I am talking about and "saved it".  A gentleman named "Don Stratton" wrote the addendum to the original Michael Smith article.  I give credit where credit is due.

Yes, our founding documents preclude socialism; it is not in any way consistent with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or freedom, for that matter. "Fairness" and "democracy" as meant by today's libtards are nothing more than code for communism as are "equity" and "compassion". Michael Smith lays it out more eloquently; taxation enslaves both the payer and destroys the parasite for whom the taxes are confiscated. Every penny destroys our republic and propels us towards the hellish third world, European model that always ends with an unarmed citizenry helpless against authoritarian, atheist ideologues like Lenin, Mao and countless others-Starmer Macron, Mussolini, etc.

Michael Smith

1d ·

Since the American left insists on denying the morality of traditional America while using government to impose their own, I thought it time to further explore this quote from John Adams, written in his October 11, 1798 message to the officers of the Massachusetts militia:

“…we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Why is this 200-plus-year-old observation still relevant?

Because it strikes at the heart of the modern conflict between Statists and Anti-Statists.

The Statist impulse in contemporary politics often chases what I see as a dream—others might call it a nightmare—of enforced secularity. It is true that the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But that clause does not require society to be stripped of religion, nor does it demand that moral reasoning be banished from public life. It prevents the establishment of a national church; it does not establish a national vacuum.

It is true that progressives do not hate freedom; they just define it very differently. Modern conservatism emphasizes “freedom of”: freedom of opportunity, of speech, of religion, of self-determination. Progressivism often emphasizes “freedom from”: freedom from economic risk, from unequal outcomes, from social instability, from religious influence. The conservative approach requires limited regulation and trusts citizens to navigate life’s challenges. The progressive approach seeks expanded regulation to shield citizens from those challenges.

This divide surfaces most clearly in debates over the welfare state, health care, and taxation. Conservatives are routinely accused of selfishness for opposing expansive redistribution or resisting higher tax rates on “the rich.” The argument is familiar: if someone can afford to pay more, fairness requires it. Opposition, therefore, must be selfishness—but selfishness and fairness are not legal categories. They are moral ones.

There is no constitutional clause outlawing selfishness. There is no statute mandating fairness in every human exchange. In nature, fairness is not a governing principle; the cougar survives because it is stronger than the rabbit. Human beings, however, are not governed solely by instinct. We construct moral systems—often rooted in religious belief—to restrain raw power and appetite. Civilization depends on those internal restraints.

Adams understood that the Constitution is a legal framework, not a moral engine. It presumes citizens capable of self-government. The Founders intentionally limited federal power because they recognized that morality cannot be successfully legislated. When law attempts to do the work of conscience, it multiplies itself endlessly. Each new regulation creates unintended consequences, which then require further regulations. Legalism becomes both symptom and accelerant of moral decline.

The Constitution speaks to equal protection and due process. It does not promise equal outcomes. “All men are created equal” refers to equality in rights, not in results. Fairness in governance means impartial application of law, not perpetual redistribution to correct every disparity.

The nexus of legality and morality is perhaps most visible in the welfare state. Conservatives often oppose expansive redistribution not because they despise the poor, but because they believe dependency erodes dignity and self-governance. Progressives often see redistribution as a moral imperative, interpreting resistance as refusal to share. The deeper question is whether government itself can act morally when it operates through coercion. Market transactions are voluntary; government actions are backed by force. Taxes are not charitable donations. They are compulsory. When government transfers wealth from one citizen to another, it does so under threat of penalty.

From a biblical perspective, the 8th and 10th Commandments—“Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet”—frame this tension sharply. If a majority votes to take from a minority for its own benefit, does democratic process alone render the act moral? Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the “tyranny of the majority,” where numerical superiority becomes justification for encroachment.

Tax data often cited in these debates illustrate the imbalance: a relatively small percentage of earners pay a disproportionately large share of federal income taxes, while a significant portion pay little or none. In a system where one person equals one vote, but not one person equals one share of the tax burden, the temptation for majorities to vote benefits to themselves is ever-present. The moral hazard is obvious.

Economists speak of substitution theory—how behavior changes in response to incentives. Applied socially, as government expands its role in caring for the poor or regulating outcomes, individuals may gradually substitute state action for personal responsibility and private charity. Government becomes not merely administrator but moral arbiter. In extreme historical cases, the state becomes quasi-deity, demanding allegiance once reserved for religion.

This is why Adams’ warning matters. The Constitution cannot restrain passions if citizens themselves are not restrained by an internal moral code. A free republic depends on self-governing people. If morality is outsourced to legislation, freedom shrinks to accommodate enforcement.

The bottom line is this: caring for our fellow man does not require surrendering liberty as payment. Society can be compassionate without being coercive and freedom, prosperity, security, and justice are not mutually exclusive—but they do require a citizenry capable of moral self-restraint. Adams’ insight was structural, not sectarian, and a constitution designed for free people assumes those people possess the character to remain free.

Without that character, no parchment barrier can stand against the inevitable assaults.

"Ruby" By Kenny Rogers and the !st Edition.

 

   I decided to go back in to the murky past for this song.  I wanted to do it earlier, but was unable to find any material on it.  But I found some this time.  This song my Dad used to play all the time, and I would hear it on his "Reel to Reel" tape player.

His was either a "Sony" or a "Sanyo".  I recall him telling me that he picked it up at the PX in Saigon.  The sound quality was really good, Nothing from digital media, but there is something about an old fashioned Reel to Reel.    He played this song and others a lot, I inherited some of my music taste from my Dad.  This song struck a chord with the Vietnam War generation, and the later Veterans who have heard this song.  The words can change a bit, but the emotions are the same.  I recall when I was working Domino's Pizza in the early 90's, we would deliver Pizza to a guy that would pay by check and on the embossed part was "WO1 then his name, and I talked to him one time, and he told me that he was a Huey pilot and his gunship got shot down and it wasn't the crash that messed him up but the landing.  Dude in a wheelchair.  My drivers would do little things for them here and there when they delivered his pizza, it was a middle GA Town after all, courtesy was a thing.  Even now when I hear this song, I think of this guy.   Funny that.

      "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town" is a song written by Mel Tillis about a paralyzed veteran of a "crazy Asian war" (given the time of its release, widely assumed but never explicitly stated to be the Vietnam War) who lies helplessly in bed as his wife "paints [herself] up" to go out for the evening without him; he believes she is going in search of a lover, and as he hears the door slam behind her, he pleads for her to reconsider. The song was made famous by Kenny Rogers and the First Edition in 1969. "Ruby" was originally recorded in 1967 by Johnny Darrell, who scored a number nine country hit with it that year.

   

In 1969, after Kenny Rogers and the First Edition's success with the hits "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)" and "But You Know I Love You", Rogers wanted to take his group more into a country music direction. They recorded their version of the song (with Rogers singing the lead) in one take. The record was a major hit for them. It made #1 in the UK on the New Musical Express (#2 on the BBC chart) staying in the top twenty for 15 weeks and selling over a million copies by the end of 1970. In the United States it reached number six on the Hot 100 and number thirty-nine on the country chart and also sold more than 1 million copies by 1979. Worldwide, the single sold more than 7 million copies.
In 1977, now a solo act following the First Edition's split in early-1976, Rogers made re-recordings of this and a number of other First Edition hits for his 1977 greatest hits package Ten Years Of Gold (later issued in the British Isles as The Kenny Rogers Singles Album), which topped the US country charts and was just as successful in the United Kingdom.

     An answer song to "Ruby," entitled "Billy, I've Got To Go To Town," was released in 1969 by Geraldine Stevens who had previously recorded successfully under the name Dodie Stevens. Sung to the same melody with an arrangement quite similar to the First Edition version, "Billy" peaked at #117 pop, #57 country. In Stevens' song, Ruby affirms her love for her disabled husband ("Billy" in her song; in "Ruby," he is not named) and pleads in turn for her man to have faith in her fidelity and her commitment to him, even in his crippled condition

     A music video consisting solely of a camera panning back and forth in a bedroom was shown at the end of a Huntley-Brinkley Report during 1969. Chet Huntley set up the video by linking it to the controversial Vietnam War and the sacrifices by U.S. servicemen and their families. Chet Huntley and David Brinkley paused after the video and then signed off in their usual fashion.   I was unable to locate the video despite searching "Youtube" and other web sites.

The Risk of Unrealized Tax Gain.

 

   Snagged this off Farcebook.  The "Cloud People" as I call them, don't want us owning anything, just renting and leasing.  "You will own nothing and be happy" was something that Mao said as did Lenin and Marx.  Of course they WILL own stuff.  Remember the Gas vs electric cars?  I remember that they wanted to make gas soo expensive that only the rich could afford it and the "Hoi Pelloi" well they would have to accept the electric version of the "K-car" with limited range...you know...so you can't go far from your "work district" without permission from your "betters"   The truth is that it is to break the "Middle Class", like Stalin and Lenin did with the "Kulaks" back in the Soviet Union.  Individually each of us don't own much in the grand scheme of things, but together we are a buffer against the "Cloud people".   If they can strip us of our wealth, our houses and 401K's  and break us like Lenin and Stalin did to the kulaks of old, then they can control the masses.  Stalin took all the wealth of the Kulaks and used it to finance the heavy industrialization that the Soviet Union favored and artificially created the famine that devastated the Ukraine in the 1930's to punish them.

Unrealized gains tax for Gen-X-Z:

You buy a Pokémon card for $50.

Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. You're keeping it.

The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 in taxes."

You: "…I didn't sell it."

Government: "Don't care. Pay up."

You don't have $100 lying around. So you're forced to sell the card you love just to pay a tax on money you never received.

Next month? That card drops back to $50.

Your card is gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.

That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax...

Now picture this.

Your mom calls you crying. She has to sell the house she raised you in. Not because she can't afford it. She's lived there 30 years. It's paid off.

But some website says it's worth more now and the government says she owes $15,000 she doesn't have.

So she sells your childhood home. The kitchen where she made you breakfast. The doorframe where she marked your height every birthday.

Gone.

To pay a tax on money that was never real.

Now picture the opposite.

Your dad put everything into his small business. For 20 years he built it from nothing. One year the business is "valued" at $2 million on paper. He owes a massive tax bill. He empties his savings. Sells his truck. Borrows money. Pays it.

Next year the market crashes. His business is worth $200,000.

He lost everything to pay a tax on a number that doesn't exist anymore.

Does the government give him his money back?

No.

Does the government give him his truck back?

No.

Does the government care?

No.

They sold this idea as "taxing billionaires." But billionaires have armies of lawyers, offshore accounts, and trusts. They'll be fine.

You know who won't be fine? Your mom. Your dad. Your neighbor with a small business. The farmer down the road who's had the same land for four generations and now has to sell it because dirt got expensive.

You're not taxing wealth. You're taxing people for owning things.

It's like getting a parking ticket for a car you might drive somewhere someday.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. To fund the fraud, waste and abuse of the welfare state they created.

There is enough money. More tax isn't needed. It's all a lie. But you've been gaslit into believing this is a rich vs poor debate.

I hope you understand what's at stake.