Evils enacted under the guise of "policy" and now "Executive Order"

The layperson’s understanding of it is that it is done to create a rule of law, that is not law. To access the power of law, when you do not have such powers or rights too such powers, to enforce such demands as you may wish to impose, when you do not have the authority to make such demands.

As one small example:

My local bank froze my access to my online service, which had been in use for quite some time, and It did so in order to make me click “agree” to a new “privacy policy” that would much more accurately be termed an " information SHARING policy". Coincidentally, they did it on a Friday, before a long holiday weekend. Basically, the policy stated that I agreed to them sharing my banking information with " ANYONE they DEEMED appropriate". ( that, if you read carefully, is actually a policy of UNRESTRICTED information sharing ), I refused that agreement by not clicking on it, but then there were absolutely no other options except to hit the back button on the web browser, no other controls functioned on the page, Also coincidentally, none of the phone, or web based customer contact options were working that weekend either, all I could do was leave a message. Finally, after waiting to contact the bank, the end result was a letter, that explained nothing except to say that this was how they do it now, and I have not been able to access my on line banking service since that time. Note that the service was not canceled, I’m just frozen out of seeing my own data.

How many of us have not been confronted by the hapless employee informing us that we have to accept something we should never have to accept, because it’s " company policy", and they, the employee between us and the policy maker, have no choice but to carry it out. It’s disturbing enough when it’s your bank, or your pharmacy. It’s beyond disturbing when it’s a police officer carrying out " department policy". Under this all too successful guise, we are suffering more and more unjust demands while the actual person imposing it upon us is protected, because they are “just following orders”. Then, in a further twist, it is found that there is no one who can be held accountable at the corporate office, or department, because there is no identifiable person who is “solely responsible”. The offending unjust behavior is carried out, with no recourse identifiable for you to use, due to the “responsibility shuffle” that leaves no responsible party.

Now consider the phenomenon of the " Executive order" as it has now come to be used.
It is not law, because the President can not make law, that is the exclusive domain of the legislative branch. Yet, with the passive aid of the judicial branch, it can carry the weight of law, and the president can strip people of their jobs, and more, if they do not comply, just like law. Like the " policy ploy" that has gone before it, it circumvents rights, and laws, that are in place to prevent such abuses. And making it “policy” or “An executive order” also circumvents the usual avenues of addressing such an abuse. namely, that it’s otherwise illegal!

We should never stand for such abuses , yet now, we can’t even collect others in agreement to oppose it, because affiliated powerhouses of technology can just “freeze us out” of our access to others, because we were using their service to communicate.

To say that these are dangerous times, is to grossly understate the situation!

How long, … truly how long, can it be, before history once again repeats it self, and we find ourselves forced to surrender our rights and become defenseless? The assault on our rights to an effective self defense are already well under way, and well known. There is no doubt as to the intent, only the means.

Today it’s a mandate designed to force you to accept something you may not want, and may believe harmful to you. If it works, how long can we possibly expect it will be before the next mandate is designed to force us to give up something we don’t want to give up, that also causes us to be in fear for our life and well being.

I see a VERY alarming precedent being set with these “policy” and “Executive Order” controls being placed upon us. You may well say " Oh, they can’t do that", but I would argue, That they already are!


Very well written post on a very relevant topic. I don’t have the answers, but just feel like something’s got to give, and have the feeling that in the not so distant future, it will. Seems the vaccine mandate is getting some backlash, and unfortunate repercussions. The potential new empowerment slated for the IRS has been getting some reaction as well. Glad I’m done with the rat race. The search for a place more off the grid, chapter 2 :joy:, resumes in a few weeks.


Amen, brother! Preach it! :+1:t2:


In my little corner of the world. :us:
Please read the 5th paragraph.
This can only be enforced at the State and Local level.

SHAWANO COUNTY, Wis. (WAOW)-- President Biden’s recent vaccine mandate has left businesses scrambling to make decisions on requiring the COVID-19 vaccine or not. But the Shawano County Sheriff said it was never a question for him.

“I truly believe your medical decisions should be solely made by you. And I really believe that leaders need to stand up and say no,” Said Adam Bieber, Shawano County Sheriff.

Sheriff Bieber said he wants people to be safe, but he does not feel it is his responsibility to follow a mandate. The decision has come with some backlash.

“The latest one that I saw is that I don’t care about kids and that is just not true. What I care about is people’s rights. What I care about is the Bill of Rights. What I care about is the veterans and the people that have fought and died for our freedoms, our liberties, our pursuit of happiness, and those are the things that I’m trying to preserve for the folks that I represent,” Sheriff Bieber said.

The Shawano County Health Department said they do recommend people get the vaccine, however, they say there is no way to enforce a mandate.

“We don’t really always know why somebody is not able to get the vaccine. There is freedom of choice, there is a lot of different reasons. It is always recommended but to enforce that as a law is real tricky,” said Theresa Harmala, Shawano and Menomonie Health Department Health Officer.

Health experts say the vaccine mandate is a tough situation with a lot of controversy and they hope people can just show extra grace to city leaders during this time.

“I guess some grace for the leaders in our community would be hopeful. We really do work well together. We have a wonderful community so lets just, we’re all sick of it, but let’s kind of try to be the best version of ourselves under very difficult circumstances,” Harmala said.

While Sheriff Bieber remains firm in his decision to let those he oversees choose, other law enforcement agencies said they are waiting and working with health departments before making any decisions.

Brittany Slaughter


I remember a while back in time when some fellas were " just following orders" didn’t work out so well for them. I also remember a time when some folks in other countries were being taken over & were not defenseless. I guess there’ll come a time when shtf, we’ll all see what happens then. Preppers may have the right idea, perhaps some will listen. Hmm reminds me of the boy scouts motto. As for me when it happens I’ll stay with God.


Thank you for the good word. This has been a burr in my side for a while as I see how we are pushed around with it.


I’m always Impressed by how those “old”, “low technology”, “ancient times” founders of our nation, were so well tuned in that they could not only see what would be the future threats to the freedom they gave refuge too, but also how it would most likely come about. I’m impressed with how spot on they were! They knew the real threat was human nature, and human corruption. The Constitution, and other founding documents prove as relevant as ever, in my opinion, because what they were most written to address, has still not changed, despite all the advances. That being, human nature.


God, specifically, Jesus Christ (through Our Lady) is the Key! Thank you for your post! God bless you.

1 Like

This problem is a consequence of an economic model known as capitalism, wherein a private person or company can run their business however they damn please. The options available to a worker or customer in this system are: a) accept what is offered, or b) see if you can obtain a more acceptable arrangement elsewhere. Under capitalism, that is known as “freedom”.

The various flavors of socialism propose a different economic model which attempts to replace the excesses of capitalism in the interests of community. Many people have real and fanciful objections to the word “socialism”, while they reap its benefits on a daily basis. So it goes.

Another option for restraining excesses of the “free” market is for regulation and enforcement by the Executive branch of government to protect the public interest. In general, the Legislature often provides only a general statutory framework within which the Executive regulates. When the legislative lawyers attempt to regulate by committee down to every jot and tittle, the results are often a hopeless mess which only the judicial lawyers can untangle. That’s the American model, for all its strengths and weaknesses.

There are other approaches to controlling private behavior, but they all get dark and chaotic pretty quickly. I can’t think of an example which allowed a stable society to thrive.

Actually, there is statutory law — which the Legislative branch makes, the Executive branch enforces, and the Judicial branch oversees. Anyone can make a proposal; anyone can make an objection.

And there is regulatory law — which the Executive branch makes, either at the direction of Legislative statute or “for the good of the public order” in the absence of legislation. In oversight of regulatory law, both the legislature and the courts have the power to correct Executive misstep by declaring, in essence: “that’s not what we meant!” or “that’s not acceptable discretion!”

There is also case law — which the Judicial branch makes, mainly by interpreting statutory and regulatory law for consistency and constitutionality — but also filling voids in the law where a judgement must be made. In oversight of case law, both the executive and legislature can reform their laws (within constitutional bounds) if they find the courts not in the public interest.

None of this is new or extraordinary — it is the way the rule of law is construed in the American system. If any or all of the three branches fail to provide checks upon the others, it certainly is possible for things to run off the rails. But that is less “overreach” by one branch and more failure to perform by the other two. Seems like there has been a lot of that in this century.

American history is full of Executive Orders — challenged and unchallenged.

I agree. You must fight. Accept inconvenience and less services. Switch banks 100 times if you must. Stop watching “woke” sports like the NFL. Get off the anti freedom of speech social media. Stop assisting these institutions that are seeking to destroy freedom. Do not participate, no matter how hard it gets. Think of the suffering, sacrifice, and pain our war fighters went thru. They fought and died, you can stop watching football, or posting on Facebook, or running your entire financial life thru the evil banking system. Google your name and write to these companies that have your information and tell them to delete it. They will. I have no internet footprint. You can’t find me. I keep the minimum amount of money necessary to pay bills in my account. At the end of the month my balance is negligible. My gun safe is stacked with cash, gold, and silver. I know we have to work, eat, and pay bills, but do your best.


What would you rather have, the freedom to find a more acceptable deal (Capitalism) or the single option offered by a socialist regime?

1 Like

One of my favorite quotes from Thomas Sowell on socialism is as follows. “Socialism is in fact a wonderful vision — a world of the imagination far better than any place anywhere in the real world, at any time over the thousands of years of recorded history. Even many conservatives would probably prefer to live in such a world, if they thought it was possible.”

But that is getting off topic. Watching such mandates as we are now about to see here, on Vaccines, Masks and shelter in place , I have been appalled at Australia and the police accosting people for walking outside of their home without a mask. They are beating people to the ground and hauling them off to jail never once asking if they have been vaccinated, Yes they can do it because they removed firearms from the population, but for how long. These draconian progressive tactics do nothing to unite us but they do show us who the enemy is. In many cases it turns out to be our neighbors that at one time we supported.


An interesting vid, if you have time, watch it. :us:


Not sure I’m quite following the gist of the question. Which would you rather have, the freedom to develop more acceptable deals (socialism), or the the single option offered by a capitalist regime? I only see the straw men. :roll_eyes:

Me, I like insurance, public safety services, public roads, public lands and parks, public schools, public health, organized labor, worker safety, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, neighborly cooperation, universal franchise, the Bill of Rights, and the many other socialist values upon which this great nation :us: has been built within the precepts of our founding documents.

If you don’t appreciate those things, fine — vote against them. That’s how a democratic nation chooses its paths. But don’t try to paint me into a Stalinist corner — that’s not what the word means.

Private property ownership or state owned? Wages or forced labor? Rationing or market prices?

Which acceptable option is offered by socialism? Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Cuba, or Venezuela?

Don’t you mean a Representative Republic?


cf. strawman, ibid.

Sure, in our particular case. There are other democratic models. I did not intend to be narrow in that meaning, either. I would not argue that our method is better, or truer to the intent of a liberal democracy — it certainly made things simpler when states were days or weeks of carriage travel apart.

I think these are in part the things we should do, and maybe a bit of what the left has done, though, when WE protest, it gets spun into an insurrection. So be it, they are evil, and liars, you have to expect that.


Opinion ,- In response to, and in opposition to, the apparent argument in favor of socialism:

It was said at the time, that the system of government they were establishing with the writing of the constitution, was sufficient only for a moral people who believed in a creator God. (expressed here with My words, and, I will not participate in a tit-for-tat, about some minor detail you can correct me on ). ( I believe it was either Franklin or Jefferson who expressed it ). But who ever expressed it, as to the principal that was being expressed by it, I have to agree. Our system of government won’t work except for a people who take responsibility not only for the country and government, but also personal responsibility, and an acceptance of a further responsibility for your fellow human being as one is able. This form of government is for people who want to take responsibility for themselves along with their God. For those who want to be provided for, or who believe there are no absolute truths in life, it is insufficient.

For a Godless people, or those without a consistent moral framework, our form of government is bound to fail, for the very reasons we are witnessing now. The excesses of capitalism are but one example of where things can go wrong. As long as enough people take responsibility, the system works, with impressive results. But whenever people start taking things for granted, or become lax in their vigilance, or in what they will tolerate, it begins to be compromised from within.

Even if you leave the concept of God out of it. Our system of government is only for a people who take responsibility for themselves under an agreed upon moral code or set of principals, devoid of that, I believe it can not work. It is true that for a time, and of a given number, our system can tolerate a certain amount of corruption and a certain number of those who take but do not contribute, but that number is limited. For a people who want to be provided for, have every problem fixed by another, have every grievance paid for, and above all, have equal outcome guaranteed, as opposed to simply being given an equal opportunity with which to work, this form of government is insufficient.


I believe our form of government was chosen by the people who founded our nation, because it offered the best possible life for a people who wanted to be free, and who wanted to have an unfettered opportunity to make the most of life, while having the power, each in his or her own person, to resist those who would try and control others unduly. Other forms of government always resorted, in one for or another, to that undue control in attempt to achieve their goals, and always by a form of force, a force that was unchecked, and worst of all, could be impossible to oppose when it went wrong. Socialism is a delightful dream for someone who believes life can be made equal for everyone, and for those who don’t mind being one bee in a colony of other bees, where everyone is more or less the same, and all work is done for the colony that supports them. But socialism resorts to that control by force, as it must. A force that always ends up not being regulated by the people that are subject to that force.

I detest socialism not for the dream it has, so much as for the results it routinely achieves. It too has weaknesses to the human condition that it too succumbs too, with far worse results than what we have here thus far. We, even now, have a chance, the rights, and the framework in place with which to fix this, if we but had the will to fight the lies and corruption, and the renewed willingness to accept responsibility for ourselves. It is, as yet, still our choice, while we yet retain the means. If however we are to surrender our position, then we will have no means, no choice, and little recourse when things go horribly wrong. We may not even be allowed the ability to know what has gone wrong!

And that is the dark alternative that our constitution allows us to avoid. It is not perfect, and requires continual effort, but it allows it’s citizens to oppose, and avoid, the darkest sets of realities that can befall the human life.

So to conclude. I yet have the right, the means, ( if a little illegally infringed upon of late ), and some framework with which I can object too, and oppose the evils I highlighted. Other forms of government, like those we are morphing into here, and in other places around the world, do not allow that. Just look at all the force being used to make people conform. Look at how you are not allowed to so much as question, and see all the punishments being handed out, very often unreasonable punishments that are out of all proportion. Is that what people want?

If you are one who is willing to do the work, there is still no better form of government that I know of for the potential good of it’s citizens than what we are now abandoning, and it’s being abandoned not for truth, but for lies!


Except for those two sentences, I am 100% on-board with the thoughts expressed by @DS-1 . The problem with those sentences is to narrowly define socialism as only those historic (and ongoing) examples of strongman or state authoritarianism waving a specific flag of “communist” control. For the most part those examples don’t even demonstrate socialist values, let alone define them.

Otherwise, right on. Power to the people. :us:
I’m ready to go back to USCCA for USCCA. Let Twitter be Twitter.

1 Like

Socialist values, as opposed to socialism as we have known it. Well said, it immediately melts away animosity and makes one more interested to hear how one might view their socialist values. I will take that under advisement the next time I converse with someone who holds their values under that name.

1 Like