Category: Pat’s Opinions

America is Balkanized

IF the population is jobless, divided, hungry, leaderless and pissed off and
IF a foreign power suddenly attacks with a Nuclear, Biological (COVID), Chemical, or Cyber weapons OR just simply invades to HELP under UN authority…..

Balkanized; to break up (a region, a group, etc.) into smaller and often hostile units

IF the military is sufficiently weakened through endless foreign wars and saddled with broken equipment in need of repairs that never get made and IF the civilian leadership is also fragmented and fighting each other and
IF the Leader (President) no longer even has access to the nuclear codes for Mutually Assured Destruction and there is no coordinated Central Command and
IF the population is jobless, divided, hungry, leaderless and pissed off and
IF a foreign power suddenly attacks with a Nuclear, Biological (COVID), Chemical, or Cyber weapons OR just simply invades to HELP under UN authority…..

What exactly will America do about it?

Any and all – that might be what we are being set up for.

In my humble opinion, we do not have a lot of time to make repairs.

American Cultural Revolution?

When there is no relief valve in the pressure cooker, it’s eventually released in a Cultural Revolution that unleashes all the bottled-up frustrations on elites which are deemed politically vulnerable.

(received from a friend who wishes to remain anonymous)

There is a whiff of unease in the air as beneath the cheery veneer of free money for almost everyone, inequality and polarization are rapidly consuming what’s left of common ground in America.


Though there are many systemic differences between China and the U.S., humans in every nation are all still running Wetware 1.0 and so it is instructive to consider what can be learned from China’s Cultural Revolution 1966-1976.
China’s Cultural Revolution was remarkably different from the Party’s military-political victory of 1949. Where the political revolution was managed by the centralized hierarchy of the Communist Party (CCP), the Cultural Revolution quickly morphed from a movement launched by Mao into a decentralized mass movement against all elites, including Party and state elites which had been sacrosanct and untouchable.
The Cultural Revolution is not an approved topic in China today, and that alerts us to its importance.
Although ostensibly launched by Mao (as part of his 1966 purge of Party rivals), the Cultural Revolution very quickly devolved into a decentralized, semi-chaotic movement of Red Guards, students and other groups who shared ideas and programs but who acted quite independent of the Party’s central leadership. (In systems language, semi-chaotic dynamics are emergent properties.)
If you examine Mao’s statements that supposedly launched The Cultural Revolution, you’ll find they’re not much different from his many pronouncements in the 1950s and early 1960s, none of which sparked a violent national upheaval. The Cultural Revolution cannot be traced back to Mao’s control or plans; rather, Mao served as the politically untouchable inspiration for whatever measures the local cadres deemed necessary in terms of advancing (or cleansing) the people’s revolution.
The important point here is that the Cultural Revolution was not controlled by the political authorities, even as they maintained control of the Party and central government hierarchy in Beijing. But this was nothing more than an illusion of control: the forces of the Cultural Revolution had broken free of central command and control, even as the Red Guards expressed their loyalty to Mao and the principles of the Party as the politically approved cover for their rampage.
That’s the irony of Cultural Revolutions: the authorities cannot claim it is a political counter-revolution because the cultural revolutionaries proclaim their loyalty to the ideals and principles the authorities claim to be upholding.
Cultural Revolutions in effect claim the higher ground, eschewing political influence for direct action in the name of furthering the ideals which the authorities have abandoned or betrayed.
Given the fragmentary nature of The Cultural Revolution, the history is equally fragmentary– especially given the official reticence.
A recent academic book, Agents of Disorder: Inside China’s Cultural Revolution, provides granular detail on the fragmented, decentralized, rapidly evolving dynamics of the movement:


“(The author) devoted decades to examining the local records of nearly all of China’s 2,000-plus county-level jurisdictions. He found that factions emerged from the splintering, rather than the congealing, of class-based groups. Small clusters of students, workers, and cadres struggling to respond to Mao’s shifting directives made split-second decisions about whom to align with. Political identities did not shape the conflict; they emerged from it. To explain this process of identity formation, he offers a theory of ‘factions as emergent properties’ and suggests that similar dynamics may characterize social movements everywhere.”

In other words, groups modified their alliances, identities and definitions of “class enemies” on the fly, entirely free of central authorities. Factions splintered, regrouped and splintered again. In the chaos, no one was safe.
Those who lived through The Cultural Revolution are reticent about revealing their experiences. Even in the privacy of their homes in the U.S., their voices become hushed and their reluctance to give voice to their experiences is evident.


The unifying thread in my view is the accused belonged to some “counter-revolutionary” elite –or they were living vestiges of a pre-revolutionary elite (children of the landlord class, professors, etc.)–and it was now open season on all elites, presumed or real.


What generates such spontaneous, self-organizing violence on a national scale? My conclusion is that cultural revolutions result from the suppression of legitimate political expression and the failure of the regime to meet its lofty idealistic goals.


Cultural revolutions are an expression of disappointment and frustration with corruption and the lack of progress in improving everyday life, frustrations that have no outlet in a regime of self-serving elites who view dissent as treason and/or blasphemy.


By 1966, China’s progress since 1949 had been at best uneven, and at worst catastrophic: the Great Leap Forward caused the deaths of millions due to malnutrition and starvation, and other centrally planned programs were equally disastrous for the masses.


Given the quick demise of the Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom movement of open expression, young people realized there was no avenue for dissent within the Party, and no way to express their frustration with the Party’s failure to fulfil its idealistic goals and promises.

When there is no relief valve in the pressure cooker, it’s eventually released in a Cultural Revolution that unleashes all the bottled-up frustrations on elites which are deemed politically vulnerable. These frustrations have no outlet politically because they’re threatening to the status quo.


All these repressed emotions will find some release and expression, and whatever avenues are blocked by authorities will channel the frustrations into whatever is still open.


A Cultural Revolution takes the diversity of individuals and identities and reduces them into an abstraction which gives the masses permission to criticize the abstract class that “deserves” whatever rough justice is being delivered by the Cultural Revolution.


As the book review excerpt noted, the definition of who deserves long overdue justice shifts with the emergent winds, and so those at the head of the Revolution might find themselves identified as an illegitimate elite that must be unseated.


I submit that these conditions exist in the U.S.: the systemic failure of the status quo to deliver on idealized promises and the repression of dissent outside “approved” (i.e. unthreatening to the status quo) boundaries.


What elite can be criticized without drawing the full repressive powers of the central state? What elite will it be politically acceptable to criticize? I submit that “the wealthy” are just such an abstract elite.


To protect itself, a repressive status quo implicitly signals that the masses can release their ire on an abstract elite with indistinct boundaries–a process that will divert the public anger, leaving the Powers That Be still in charge.
But just as in China’s Cultural Revolution, central authorities will quickly lose control of conditions on the ground. They will maintain the illusion of control even as events spiral ever farther from their control. The falcon will no longer hear the falconer.


In other words, once the social pressure cooker valve gives way, then the unleashed forces soon grasp that there are few limits on what they can criticize as long as they do so within an implicitly approved narrative–for example, “the wealthy” hoarded wealth and power and so it is just to claw it back by whatever means are available. Since the government failed to do so, the people will have to do so.


The extreme inequalities of wealth and power that are now the dominant dynamic in America are heating the cultural pressure cooker, and when the pressure can no longer be contained, then being recognized as wealthy will shift very quickly from something desirable to something to avoid at all costs.


The lesson of China’s Cultural Revolution in my view is that once the lid blows off, everything that was linear (predictable) goes non-linear (unpredictable, fragmented, contingent, emergent, prone to extremes, uncontrollable). If America experiences a Cultural Revolution, the outcome won’t lend itself to tidiness or predictability.


To use an analogy from previous blog posts, if the pendulum is pushed to an extreme, when it’s released, it will reach an equivalent extreme (minus a bit of friction) at the opposite end. That could be an unexpected but entirely foreseeable Cultural Revolution.


Those who claim that can’t happen in America are safely outside the pressure cooker, protected by a delusional confidence that since I’m doing great, everyone is doing great. Since real political agency is no longer allowed, then the pressure will find release outside the political system. It’s just Wetware 1.0 running defaults few recognize.

Hello Darkness my old friend…

Hello Darkness My Old Friend, a Simon and Garfunkel song inspired by a College roommate who went blind – reveals an untold story. Enjoy and then listen to the song itself.
One of the best-loved songs of all time. Simon & Garfunkel’s hit The Sound Of Silence topped the US charts and went platinum in the UK.
It was named among the 20 most performed songs of the 20th century, included in Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and provided the unforgettable soundtrack to 1967 film classic The Graduate. But to one man The Sound Of Silence means much more than just a No 1 song on the radio with its poignant opening lines: “Hello Darkness my old friend, I’ve come to talk with you again.”
Sanford “Sandy” Greenberg is Art Garfunkel’s best friend, and reveals in a moving new memoir, named after that lyric, that the song was a touching tribute to their undying bond, and the singer’s sacrifice that saved Sandy’s life when he unexpectedly lost his sight.
“He lifted me out of the grave,” says Sandy, aged 79, who recounts his plunge into sudden blindness, and how Art Garfunkel’s selfless devotion gave him reason to live again.
Sandy and Arthur, as Art was then known, met during their first week as students at the prestigious Columbia University in New York.
“A young man wearing an Argyle sweater and corduroy pants and blond hair with a crew cut came over and said, ‘Hi, I’m Arthur Garfunkel’,” Sandy recalls.
They became roommates, bonding over a shared taste in books, poetry and music.
“Every night Arthur and I would sing. He would play his guitar and I would be the DJ. The air was always filled with music.”
“Still teenagers, they made a pact to always be there for each other in times of trouble. “If one was in extremis, the other would come to his rescue,” says Sandy They had no idea their promise would be tested so soon. Just months later, Sandy recalls: “I was at a baseball game and suddenly my eyes became cloudy and my vision became unhinged. Shortly after that darkness descended.” Doctors diagnosed conjunctivitis, assuring it would pass. But days later Sandy went blind, and doctors realized that glaucoma had destroyed his optic nerves.
Sandy was the son of a rag-and-bone man. His family, Jewish immigrants in Buffalo, New York, had no money to help him, so he dropped out of college, gave up his dream of becoming a lawyer, and plunged into depression. “I wouldn’t see anyone, I just refused to talk to anybody,” says Sandy. “And then unexpectedly Arthur flew in, saying he had to talk to me. He said, ‘You’re gonna come back, aren’t you?’ “I said,: ‘No, There’s no conceivable way.’ “He was pretty insistent, and finally said, ‘Look, I don’t think you get it. I need you back there. That’s the pact we made together: we would be there for the other in times of crises. I will help you’.”
Together they returned to Columbia University, where Sandy became dependent on Garfunkel’s support. Art would walk Sandy to class, bandage his wounds when he fell, and even filled out his graduate school applications.
Garfunkel called himself “Darkness” in a show of empathy. The singer explained: “I was saying, ‘I want to be together where you are, in the black’.” Sandy recalls: “He would come in and say, ‘Darkness is going to read to you now.’ “Then he would take me to class and back. He would take me around the city. He altered his entire life so that it would accommodate me.”
Garfunkel would talk about Sandy with his high-school friend Paul Simon, from Queens, New York, as the folk rock duo struggled to launch their musical careers, performing at local parties and clubs. Though Simon wrote the song, the lyrics to The Sound of Silence are infused with Garfunkel’s compassion as Darkness, Sandy’s old friend.
Guiding Sandy through New York one day, as they stood in the vast forecourt of bustling Grand Central Station, Garfunkel said that he had to leave for an assignment, abandoning his blind friend alone in the rush-hour crowd, terrified, stumbling and falling. “I cut my forehead” says Sandy. “I cut my shins. My socks were bloodied. I had my hands out and bumped into a woman’s breasts. It was a horrendous feeling of shame and humiliation. “I started running forward, knocking over coffee cups and briefcases, and finally I got to the local train to Columbia University. It was the worst couple of hours in my life.”
Back on campus, he bumped into a man, who apologized. “I knew that it was Arthur’s voice,” says Sandy. “For a moment I was enraged, and then I understood what happened: that his colossally insightful, brilliant yet wildly risky strategy had worked.” Garfunkel had not abandoned Sandy at the station, but had followed him the entire way home, watching over him. “Arthur knew it was only when I could prove to myself I could do it that I would have real independence,” says Sandy. “And it worked, because after that I felt that I could do anything.
“That moment was the spark that caused me to live a completely different life, without fear, without doubt. For that I am tremendously grateful to my friend.” Sandy not only graduated, but went on to study for a master’s degree at Harvard and Oxford.
While in Britain he received a phone call from his friend – and with it the chance to keep his side of their pact. Garfunkel wanted to drop out of architecture school and record his first album with Paul Simon, but explained: “I need $400 to get started.” Sandy, by then married to his high school sweetheart, says: “We had $404 in our current account. I said, ‘Arthur, you will have your cheque.’ “It was an instant reaction, because he had helped me restart my life, and his request was the first time that I had been able to live up to my half of our solemn covenant.”
The 1964 album, Wednesday Morning, 3 AM, was a critical and commercial flop, but one of the tracks was The Sound Of Silence, which was released as a single the following year and went to No 1 across the world. “The Sound Of Silence meant a lot, because it started out with the words ‘Hello darkness’ and this was Darkness singing, the guy who read to me after I returned to Columbia blind,” says Sandy.
Simon & Garfunkel went on to have four smash albums, with hits including Mrs. Robinson, The Boxer, and Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Amazingly, Sandy went on to extraordinary success as an inventor, entrepreneur, investor, presidential adviser and philanthropist. The father of three, who launched a $3million prize to find a cure for blindness, has always refused to use a white cane or guide dog. “I don’t want to be ‘the blind guy’,” he says. “I wanted to be Sandy Greenberg, the human being”
Six decades later the two men remain best friends, and Garfunkel credits Sandy with transforming his life. With Sandy, “my real life emerged,” says the singer. “I became a better guy in my own eyes, and began to see who I was – somebody who gives to a friend. “I blush to find myself within his dimension. My friend is the gold standard of decency.” Says Sandy: “I am the luckiest man in the world”

More 2nd Amendment

Then why have a Bill of Rights?

You wouldn’t be the first person to ask that. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of rights was dangerous.

They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion.

Again, I ask, have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Specifically, have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments?

It’s important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them.

They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government.

The 9th says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people.

The 10th says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.”

So it’s enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn’t even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.

So why then do we have a Bill of Rights?

Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights.

There are are there actually rights not mentioned in the Constitution that we’ve been denied… The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver’s licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.

And, if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures.

Weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo- Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the man’s hand. It was symbolic of the man’s new rank.

What The Founders Said

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
-John Adams, In Defense of the Constitution

“…No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson, writing on the proposed Virginia Constitution 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria—a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary— in On Crimes and Punishment

Perhaps the reason that our current “educational” institutions don’t teach our youth their true history and rights is that you cannot defend rights of which you are ignorant.

More 2A

To keep and bear arms.

Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that says the individual can’t have arms?Just keep in mind my question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not there’s anything in it that says they can’t?

Do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s not even a complete list of our rights. The Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.

It’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government.

Let me ask you this; in a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?

Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials…?

Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?

The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.It may be, that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government.

If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.

(…to be continued)

European Plans for ‘Vaccine Passports’ Were in Place 20 Months Prior to the Pandemic.

In Europe, however, which hosts 8 of the top 10 pharmaceutical exporting countries, planning for vaccine passports began at least 20 months prior to the start of the COVID-19 outbreak.

With the world being told that so-called ‘vaccine passports’ will be required for all international travel in future, and in many countries even to enter shops, restaurants, bars, gyms, hotels, theaters, concerts and sports events, the impression we are being given is that the measure is a direct result of the corona virus pandemic.

In Europe, however, which hosts 8 of the top 10 pharmaceutical exporting countries, planning for vaccine passports began at least 20 months prior to the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Apparently, the pandemic conveniently provided European politicians with the ‘excuse’ they needed to introduce the idea.

The ‘European Commission’ – the executive body of Europe – first published a proposal for vaccine passports on 26 April 2018. Buried deep in a document dealing with ‘Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases’, the proposal was essentially ignored by the mainstream media.

A road map document issued in early 2019 subsequently set out specific plans for implementing the European Commission’s proposal. The primary action listed in the road map was to “examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport” for European citizens that is “compatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.” The plan aimed for a legislative proposal to be issued in Europe by 2022.
SOURCE: https://www.globalresearch.ca/european-plans-vaccine-passports-place-20-months-prior-pandemic/5741702

Gun sales soar…

The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words.

Gun Sales Soar From Stimulus And Biden’s Gun Control Plan .

Biden’s plan is to restrict assault weapons like the AR-556 pistol from Sturm, Ruger that was allegedly used by the Boulder gunman. But the violence has also prompted a rise in gun sales, and retailers have reported that they’re seeing more Asian-American gun buyers, seeking protection from hate crimes.

Since the start of the pandemic, more than 8.4 million Americans have purchased guns for the first time, according to estimates from the gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“Americans continue to vote with their wallets when it comes to lawful firearm ownership,” said Mark Oliva, director of public affairs for the NSSF. “March’s record background checks shows that President Biden’s demand to enact a ban on AR-15s and the push by Democrats to enact laws that would deny Americans their rights is out of step with Main Street, U.S.A.”

The gun purchases have led to nationwide shortages in ammunition. Every gun retailer interviewed by Forbes is rationing ammunition purchases and some calibers are unavailable.

“Gun control” is not a function of the government. A broad statement you might counter, after all, the 2nd amendment specifically cites “a well regulated militia”.

You’ve got to understand what the militia is. In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed.

That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing- of that act, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers.

It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it didn’t exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and that’s why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.

You might respond; “So, you’re also saying only people between 17 and 44 are allowed guns, right?”

No, that’s just the ages of the body of men constituting the militia. The amendment says the people can both keep and bear arms.

It’s usually been construed to mean all the people.

The law hasn’t changed, but even if we decide the word means something new to us, you can’t use the new definition to change the intent of the amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words.

And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval.

And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.

(…to be continued)

White supremacy?

Ronald Reagan’s old saying applies here – “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.”

(received this from a friend, it makes too much sense).


The reported rise in anti-Asian American violence is alleged to be related to white supremacism – but it certainly appears, based on the available statistics, whites are not responsible for the increase.


The most recent examples have been black Americans acting against Asian Americans.

People aren’t stupid and even thugs are people.
Even if it is subconsciously, I would offer that the criminals are using the cover of “white supremacy” as a justification for their own racial animus.

I would argue that because the perpetrators know;
1) they won’t bear the full blame (because whitey made them do it) and
2) their offense will result in less punishment because they are not white, those two aspects incentivize them to act.

The existence of minority on minority crime is being painted over in favor of something that has both social and political power – namely calling the acts “white supremacy” and creating irrational and illogical reasoning to force the square peg in the round white supremacy hole.

Combine the “white supremacy” ruse with the fact that progressive District Attorneys in major cities have decided that crime isn’t really crime if your race has been historically oppressed and enforcing the law is a continuation of that oppression, and the problem boils down to simple economics.

Ronald Reagan’s old saying applies here – “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.”

The lack of prosecution is a subsidization of criminal behavior, prosecution is a tax on criminal behavior.

Shouldn’t be a surprise why violence across the board is on the rise.