The 'Rules' Rule

or "Do Unto Others"

There’s probably a more official term for it, but for years I’ve referred to it simply as the ‘Rules’ rule. Jesus called it “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you”. Politicians call it “Do unto others, BEFORE they do unto you”, as they twist it on its head. And herein lies the problem.

The idea of the ‘Rules’ rule is that whenever you are promoting a new rule, ordinance, statute/law, constitutional amendment, or simply “laying down the parameters in a friendship/relationship”… imagine your perceived adversary wielding this rule, and using it against you. In the political world, assume the “other” party will one day be in control of government, and use these tools you ushered in, against us.

I’ll use the dem’s push for locking up people in 2020, if they didn’t wear a face diaper, as an example. They actually advocated for locking people up for not agreeing with them on a personal-decision issue, which they felt was their business to dictate. But now, locking criminals up for actual crimes is labeled “authoritarianism”, as is sending illegals back to their points of origin. They ushered in this mentality, and it is now used in a way they don’t agree with.

In some cases, they’re not wrong. They just see it as a one-way street. For example, the current administration’s threats of deporting citizens for speaking ill of a foreign government, Israel, is unconstitutional and unconscionable. Deport citizens to where? Am I to be deported someday to Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, or Italy, if I run afoul of the current king, because my grand parents and great grandparents came from those places? That’s not America-First… it’s Israel-First.

And, for what am I to be deported for??? The First Amendment secures my God-Given Right to seek redress of my government; my right to disagree with an action or behavior they do. But, somehow, doing the same thing about a foreign government, ally or not, is illegal? Maybe it’s not so far-fetched to think that Epstein and Maxwell are Mossad agents, whose job it was to incriminate, and hold hostage, our public servants. The fact that so many in Congress today hold dual citizenship, mostly with Israel, begs that question.

Another example of the ‘Rules’ rule could be the taking over of law-enforcement duties.

The ‘Rules’ rule means recognizing that just because liberal cities have thwarted their proper law-enforcement duties, and crime has run amok, the federal government was never delegated law-enforcement authority in cities or states. Therefore, the answer is NOT to violate the Constitution, and create a precedent whereby future Presidents can grant themselves authorities not delegated to them by the Constitution.

I readily admit there may be a narrow authorization in the case of The District of Columbia, by Congress (not Executive), to defund the police department who are not doing their job, or perhaps even the entire local government. But, that’s up to Congress, not the President (with a phone and an auto-pen). And, there’s certainly no such authority vested in the federal government outside of the federal D.C., such as Baltimore or New York City.

Instead, I would argue that this is why there should be no permanent, primary residences in D.C., and there never should have been. It should be a working city for the very limited government, only. Somewhere along the line… we didn’t apply the ‘Rules’ rule when creating D.C. We’ve turned it into a 51st state, sort of. But, I digress.

As much as we want to celebrate this takeover, we must reject it as a step in the wrong direction. Besides, this is not what we voted for in Trump. We voted for breaking the border invasion, returning the illegals, dismantling/draining the deep-state, locking them up for their crimes, returning Election Integrity to same-day paper ballots, and returning to an American-Made economy. We did not envision federal overreach, even if it targets our perceived adversaries… the Dem-run cities and states.

And, we certainly didn’t vote for more mRna bioweapons, CBDC, Wearables, or ushering in the Mark of The Beast System.

There are Constitutional ways to address all of these issues. If actual crimes were committed by police/mayors/city councils/governors/judges, Pam Blondi could address it with federal charges. All she has to do is read the reports on her desk... and act on it. One of the quickest way to break up the Uniparty deep-state cabal, is to completely expose everything about Epstein and Maxwell. Everyone who fell into their hands, and everyone who engaged in sexual exploitation of children. And… ties to foreign governments, who used these compromised people to further their agenda.

There can be no hiding behind Party brands, or political alliances. In fact, just like the self-deportation model… a self-deportation of the political class, whereby you forever cede eligibility to serve, in exchange for no charges; a sealed plea bargain could be the best compromise solution to this Epstein problem.

But, this article is mainly about our instinctual tendency to look for a shortcut to get what we want, at the cost of our future liberty. Our repeated tendency to accept the government-made crisis, and demand the solution that they usher in, even though we would never accept it, if it was done by “the other guy”.

Imagine, in the future, a President AOC, dismantling ICE, then removing and arresting elected Sheriffs or police chiefs, for cooperating with ICE in the past. Just remember, if you support Trump taking over D.C., and even worse, other cities that aren’t federal districts, you have given your consent to that eventuality. You are ushering in a King of one country, instead of a federal President of one nation of 50 individual countries. And, there’s no coming back from that brink.