Saturday, December 12, 2020

Cat Belling: The Whys Are Clear, The Hows Not So Much

     Over at Ace of Spades HQ, Buck Throckmorton makes a provocative claim. Here’s how he opens:

     Tyranny doesn’t end because citizens overwhelm the tyrant’s troops and then storm the tyrant’s fortress. It ends when the tyrant’s enforcers refuse to shoot ordinary civilians. And the reason they choose not to shoot civilians is because they’ve made a calculated decision that it is now their most prudent course of action.

     Newsom, Whitmer, de Blasio, and all the other tyrants born of Covid are drunk on the power they’ve claimed during this “emergency.” They have claimed that by winning an election – once - they may now assume dictatorial powers, ignore existing laws, and suspend the Bill of Rights. Chief among these powers is determining which businesses and lives they can destroy with a simple decree.

     Most of the police and city employees enforcing decrees that shut down businesses are just “following orders.” Although they may not identify as bad people, they are engaging in evil behavior and they must be compelled to stop doing so. And they can be compelled to stop. [Emphasis added by FWP.]

     They can? Without bloodshed? Hm. “Compulsion” usually involves at least the threat of bodily harm – and American cops do carry firearms. Buck’s prescription has a strong resemblance to the New Left’s notions about “monkey-wrenching.” Please read it there, as I don’t want to copy most of another blogger’s column. Here’s how Buck winds up:

     Peaceful people seeking to stop the tyranny will not initiate violence, but will not back down at the threat of it either. It might be a more prudent choice for the tyrant’s ground troops to just not enforce these unlawful decrees after all.

     That’s a statement of hope, not of fact. Hope is wonderful – it’s one of the three theological virtues — but as has been said many times, it’s “not a strategy.”

     Remember always that people normally pursue their chosen occupations at least as much for the inherent satisfactions those occupations provide as for the wages they pay. Cops don’t become cops mainly for the spiffy uniforms or the defined-benefit pension plan. Some are genuinely motivated by a desire to serve the public...but quite a few choose the job because it allows them to exert authority over others, and to back it up with force.

     Always be extremely cautious about assumptions concerning armed agents of the State. Some of them might be okay, but some are just looking for a reason to pull the trigger. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. These days, you need a program to tell who’s on the side of the angels.

Always, Always, Always

     When you hear or read a report of a particularly vicious interracial crime – a heinous murder or a gang rape, for example – committed here in the United States, get pictures. Pictures of the perpetrators and of the victims. Keep all such pictures in a special folder, united with the reports of the relevant crimes. Over time, a pattern will emerge from those pictures. You’ll find the experience enlightening.

     What’s that? You don’t get the point? Well, have a couple of pictures! First, here are two co-perpetrators of an uncommonly vicious interracial murder:

     Now, let’s have their victims:

     Here’s the associated tale of woe:

     Brandon Bernard and his accomplices brutally murdered two youth ministers, Todd and Stacie Bagley, on a military reservation in 1999. After Todd Bagley agreed to give a ride to several of Bernard’s accomplices, they pointed a gun at him, forced him and Stacie into the trunk of their car, and drove the couple around for hours while attempting to steal their money and pawn Stacie’s wedding ring. While locked in the trunk, the couple spoke with their abductors about God and pleaded for their lives. The abductors eventually parked on the Fort Hood military reservation, where Bernard and another accomplice doused the car with lighter fluid as the couple, still locked in the trunk, sang and prayed. After Stacie said, “Jesus loves you,” and “Jesus, take care of us,” one of the accomplices shot both Todd and Stacie in the head—killing Todd and knocking Stacie unconscious. Bernard then lit the car on fire, killing Stacie through smoke inhalation. In June 2000, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found Bernard guilty of, among other offenses, two counts of murder within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and unanimously recommended a death sentence. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, and his request for collateral relief was rejected by every court that considered it. Bernard is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on December 10, 2020, at U.S. Penitentiary Terre Haute, Indiana. One of his accomplices, Christopher Vialva, was executed for his role in the Bagleys’ murder on September 22, 2020.

     Note that the murders occurred 21 years ago and that the co-perpetrators have languished on Death Row for 20 years. Note also that the “civil rights” and “anti-death-penalty” organizations are up in arms about these executions.

     I’ve been collecting such pictures for quite some time. You might remember this set, which sort of kicked off my own collection:

     Yes, I have others, but I shan’t assail your eyes with the full set. Suffice it to say that the pattern they present is virtually uniform. In all honesty, there are a few exceptions to that pattern. The 1998 murder of James Byrd is the most prominent one. But they are very few.

     Always get pictures. People learn from pictures. They’re educational.

Friday, December 11, 2020

Pearls of expression.

Somehow, a [democratic] system that was supposed to allow for regular pressure relief is now operating like a pressure cooker. Every move by the political class results in a greater degree of public agitation with them. This in turns results in more foolish responses from the political class. Liberal democracy in America appears to be in a death spiral inevitably leading to what appears to be a violent conclusion.
"Setting the Stage for Revolution." By The Z Man, Taki's Mag, 12/7/20.

A New Post on a New Site

I've been testing out SubStack, which would be useful if this site develops an issue with the Powers That Be Leftist (PTBL). Do I have any particular reason to fear deplatforming?

No. But, 'ya know, better to be cautious.

Here's a recent post.

The Rule Of Farce

     If you’re a Liberty’s Torch regular, you’ve seen me go on about constitutionalism and the requirement for a Supreme Law several times. Perhaps it made perfect sense to you, but perhaps it seemed a bit obscure, too abstract to analyze in application to the real world. If you’re one of the latter group, I hope today’s tirade will bring the central issue into better focus.

     The key to the American concept, which was at one time mentioned after such phrases as “needless to say,” is the unity between two fundamentals: rights and justice.

     The meaning of justice is the defense and maintenance of rights. Some commentators have made statements to the effect that justice must be viewed as a process rather than a result. That merely alludes to the impossibility of attaining perfect justice, wherein everyone’s rights are respected or restored, according to cases and circumstances. Fallible men operating under the veil of time are unlikely ever to perfect anything, justice included. We must sometimes agree to “make do;” for example, in cases involving murder and rape, where no conceivable restoration of the victim to his pre-victim state is possible.

     There are people who disbelieve in the concept of rights. They dismiss the notion as “metaphysical.” They’re not entirely wrong; rights aren’t physical objects but human conceptions. The natural world doesn’t respect our rights. It operates according to laws of physics that are prior and superior to human notions. Rights exist insofar as men insist upon them and upon their defense and maintenance: i.e., insofar as we insist upon justice.

     A “justice system” that does not defend and maintain a definite and well understood conception of rights is merely an enforcement scheme for someone’s preferences.


     “Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself – that is my doctrine.” – Thomas Paine

     What are rights? How do we recognize them? I’ve blathered about them before, but at this point in this screed, a brief recapitulation would be appropriate.

     Rights, if they exist, are universal properties of human beings. That is, for a claim of some sort to be a right, it must belong, without contradiction or conflict, to every human being, past, present, or future. A violation of a right would require the use of force, whether “informally” or through a system of justice, to resolve. Those are the criteria by which we distinguish claims that are not rights from the real thing.

     John Locke’s elucidation of the rights to life, liberty, and the acquisition and enjoyment of private property provides our starting point. Could everyone alive claim and exercise those rights simultaneously, without generating conflicts among them that could only be resolved by force? Yes. Would an invasion or infringement of those rights necessitate resolution by force? Yes. So they pass the test. Many other claims have been made that do not.

     Politicians and demagogues are forever claiming this or that to be a “right.” Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms,” which he regarded as “rights” to which all persons are entitled:

  1. Freedom of speech,
  2. Freedom of conscience,
  3. Freedom from want,
  4. Freedom from fear.

     Items 1 and 2 above can be derived from the Lockean rights to life and liberty. They pass, which is why they’re mentioned explicitly in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But “freedom from want” presents a quite different profile. “Want” is a wholly undefined and unbounded thing. If Smith “wants,” does he have a right to be satisfied? What if his “want” is for Jones to work for him for nothing, or for Jones to surrender his rightful property for no compensation? Similarly, “freedom from fear” fails the test. Smith’s fears are as undefined and unbounded as his wants. Should Smith have a right to have Jones killed, on the grounds of his fear?

     A recent case of a claimed “right” that’s nothing of the sort is the “right to health care.” There was a time when there were no doctors, nurses, or medical equipment...but plenty of sick people. Did they have a “right to health care?” If so, from whom? Similarly, would the “right to health care” permit me to force a doctor to treat me for no compensation, or a pharmacy to provide me my drugs at zero cost? Absurd.

     Here’s another: the “right to a living wage.” I’d have thought this one would be laughed into oblivion as soon as it was raised, but...well, anyway. Do savages living in the jungle have a “right to a living wage?” What about persons in our own society that can’t work at all, because of crippling disabilities? Who’s supposed to pay them their “living wage,” and why?

     Remember this test; it will protect you from innumerable specious claims of “rights” in the future.


     It’s just as important to be ready to condemn violations of acknowledged rights in the name of someone’s preferences or “cause.”

     One of the implications troubles some people. Do you claim a right to freedom of expression? You do? Very good, sir...but what about that pornographer over there? Do you allow that he has the same right? If not, why not?

     Here’s another. Do you believe in the right of private property? You do? Very good...but what about that cranky old neighbor who’s tired of your kids tramping through his back yard? Does he have the same right? If not, why not?

     Unless you’re willing to defend the rights of others even when you disapprove of how they exercise their rights, you don’t really believe in rights; you believe in permissions to be awarded by those who generally share your preferences.

     In my travels – 68 years’ worth, so far – I’ve met very few people who genuinely believe in rights. If you do, I hope you’re consistent about them. If you’re not...what do you really believe in?

     End of recapitulation.


     The above is prefatory. I hope it hasn’t tired you out already, because the “main event” is only just about to arrive. It concerns a phrase that has been much bandied about in recent years...in almost every case fallaciously, even with intent to deceive. You will recognize that phrase, and cringe at the ways it’s been used to bludgeon you, as soon as you read it.

     Once a society decides to allow a State – a government, for those of you confused by the capitalized term – it must settle on a conception of rights and a justice system. Note that even the most horrifying totalitarian states make a show of professing “rights,” though those “rights” and the “defense” of them are not things you or I would care to endure. As I said above, the concept of rights is the basis for any concept of justice. Even the tyrants of a state as bad as Hitler’s or Stalin’s must give rights lip service. The alternative is the bald assertion that “might makes right” – that the word of the Maximum Leader and the truncheons of his enforcers will provide all the law we need.

     If a right, once admitted, is universal, then no man can defensibly claim a “right” to violate another’s rights. Nor does it matter whether he’s a government employee. The whole point of recognizing certain rights is to pre-enjoin everyone, including agents of the State, from violating them, and to pre-exculpate all persons for doing whatever they must to defend against would-be violators.

     Time was, even schoolchildren would call this “obvious.” In fact, it goes by a familiar phrase that you’re about to encounter here. Today it causes widespread head-scratching...almost entirely because of the deliberate distortion of the concepts of rights and justice.

     That familiar phrase – I hope you’re securely seated, Gentle Reader – is:

The Rule of Law.


     The overriding reason for the Bill of Rights – which, be it remembered always, is integral with the Constitution – was to emphasize that rights are protected by the Supreme Law of the Land: the law to which all other laws, regulations, and governmental activities must conform. Were the Constitution not the Supreme Law, one could argue that “rights” are considerations of no greater importance than any law, regulation, or the means for their enforcement. (Note that this has happened anyway, through judicial “reinterpretations” of the Constitution and its provisions.)

     Now we come to the news item that redlined my turbines this morning:

     The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Bill was introduced to Parliament by the Home Secretary Priti Patel, with the much-publicized intention of permitting undercover operatives to break the law.

     However, the bill is far more extensive in terms of who it extends such provision to, with a wide variety of governmental departments listed: “Any police force; The National Crime Agency; The Serious Fraud Office; Any of the intelligence services; Any of Her Majesty’s forces; Revenue and Customs; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; The Department of Health and Social Care; The Home Office; The Ministry of Justice; The Competition and Markets Authority; The Environment Agency; The Financial Conduct Authority; The Food Standards Agency; The Gambling Commission.”

     The bill proposes that criminal activity would thus be permitted for members of all these bodies. The summary of the document states that it is to: “make provision for, and in connection with, the authorisation of criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources.”

     The CHIS bill is deliberately vague about what crimes are to be permitted, stating that criminal conduct is necessary if it is “in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

     Any government agent may grant permission for criminal activity, providing that he merely “believes” it to be necessary in accordance with the prescriptions mentioned. No substantial proof seems to be required.

     Yes, it’s Britain and not the United States...but think for a moment about the way law enforcement – at all levels – has operated during the century behind us. I can’t think of any Constitutionally “protected” right that hasn’t been violated millions of times, in the name of enforcing some “law.”

     I’m not going to enumerate the rights so violated. If you’ve been paying attention, you know what they are. If not, just read the Bill of Rights. With the possible exception of the Third Amendment, every one of its “guarantees” has been violated innumerable times, entirely without penalty to the violators. Indeed, the violators have been shielded by court decisions. In one of those decisions, “Martinez-Barker,” the court ruled that a credible order from a hierarchical superior exculpates the government agent who acts upon it. Another, Barnes v. Indiana, ruled that there is no right to resist the police.

     Under these conditions, the much ballyhooed “rule of law” has become a farce. Government agents can do whatever they please to any private citizen or private concern. Arrest and detention without accusation or trial? Asset forfeiture in the absence of a crime? The extra-judicial slaughter of private citizens over a possible violation of a tax provision? All just fine. (Let’s not go into what government agents have done to American citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.)

     Britain’s “CHIS Bill” would give legal coloration to the notion that sovereign immunity covers any and every action of any government agent, so long as he pleads that he “believed it necessary.” The United Kingdom is on the verge of enacting into “law” the de facto state of affairs that currently exists both there and in America.


     Over the several decades of my personal interest in law, political systems, and the theories behind them, I’ve often been bemused by the hand-waving that persons with an axe to grind will use to deflect or dismiss objections to their proposals. The notion that rights have been specified and guaranteed by the Supreme Law is often a major irritation to such persons. They routinely seek to steamroll Fourth Amendment protections of personal privacy and Fifth Amendment protections of private property...and they frequently succeed. Their argument is nearly always reducible to a single word: “necessity.” It’s remarkable how many persons automatically accept their contentions, and how seldom they’re called to account for the damage their nostrums have inflicted on private citizens.

     They have made a farce of rights and justice. In Bertrand de Jouvenel’s words, “Law has lost its soul and become jungle.” Yet, incredibly, you’ll hear those same persons prattle about “the rule of law” as if it retained any shred of its original meaning...usually when there’s an electoral contest to be won. Sincerity? None detectable. Nor are the members of any party free from this sin.

     Some farces are laugh-worthy. This one is not.

Thursday, December 10, 2020

I'm Unsettled and Uneasy

Partly, it's the fact that this may be the most UN-Christmasy holiday season in my life. I'm not alone in finding this year's Christmas prep difficult.

It's not being able to travel to visit family, AFTER having spent Thanksgiving with just the two of us (although, in some ways, a very satisfying day, with prepping the turkey dinner donation, Zooming with the kids, and just enjoying spending time relaxing with each other).

Of course, the election situation is causing me heartburn (and, some heartache, as well - I'm truly heartbroken, not just at what has become of our country, but at the apathy of so many Americans to some rather obvious theft).

I've been tracking down people formerly on my Christmas list, and having to accept that I've lost touch with them. It will be a smaller number of cards that I will send, but still quite important to let them know that I miss them and love them.

I have made some progress on household organization; the task has helped to soothe my nerves.

It's hard to plan ahead; we truly have no idea what lies ahead of us, either personally or as a nation.

I'm in frequent communication with my sister, who is caring for both an aging husband (20 years older than she is), and a brother, retired on medical disability, who needs daily support with managing his medical conditions and staying in his own house.

I'm not able to travel much at this time. I'm stuck in SC, and working on my own issues - household, financial, medical - to be able to be much help.

She's stressed and tired. Just ONE of the many who are continuing with their lives, managing family support, lack of sleep, and worry - a lot of worry.

So, the election is not at the front of their worries. They already have a full plate, and just can't manage it. I understand.

But, the unsettled condition of the nation's future, financial concerns, and the horrible prospect of a complete Dem takeover - politics, management, financial, health, education, and - God Help Us - national defense - is causing me lost hours of sleep.

I pray. I stay in contact with selected Patriots, and take heart at the locals who still remain faithful. 

And, I wait. Ready. Edgy. Prepared.

Hunter Biden - the Truth is Coming Out,...

...but, will anyone other than us listen?

It's a headline on the FoxNews site. I checked on CNN and MSNBC, where they mentioned the bare fact of Biden's woes, and implied that:

  1. It was related to taxes (only peripherally - the problem is, the money transfers constitute BRIBES by foreign governments, passed through allegedly private actors).
  2. It was instituted as a spiteful act by 'Trump's DOJ'. Again, not true - the DELAWARE prosecutors were interested; the DOJ has only done the minimum necessary to be able to say "we LOOKED".
But, dribble by dribble, people are finally admitting their culpability in coverups. Not just involving Hunter, the Seth Rich laptop has been found!


The fact that this news is being - FINALLY! - released is the one thread that is giving me some badly-needed hope this Christmas season. If they weren't at least a LITTLE concerned about the possibility of Trump winning, they wouldn't be letting this leak out.

Off the topic of the Biden Follies, the truth may be coming out about COVID. It's on the Front Page site, and it's both detailed, and potentially explosive. If Biden manages to pull of his con, this may never become widely known. In fact, it's probably a violation of some Super-Secret Rules to publish or refer to this; we may be deplatformed for that BadThink in the near future.

But, I'm getting more and more calm about the election outcome. Assuming that all turns out as I HOPE it does, deplatforming may be on the way out.


From The Conservative Treehouse, a story about state lawsuits against Facebook. The FCC is joining in on the fight (although, should Biden prevail, who knows?). I'd like to see FB executives in court, defending their actions in this election (and others), and subject to discovery. I'd break out the popcorn for that.

Last, the Never-Trumper/RINO destruction may be ahead. They swarmed to defeat Trump, jealous of their sagging status in the GOP. Their actions may bring them down, instead.

Good riddance.

The media is displaying all of the dextrous savoir-faire of a toddler caught in the midst of a pile of partially-opened Christmas gifts, the week before the 25th. They may have the widest eyes, and indignantly insist, "No, it wasn't me!" when confronted with the mess around them.

The more they stick to the "Trump lost" and "President-Elect Biden", the more the public is asking very inconvenient questions. How do I know that this is reaching the Critical Point?

Because MOST of my formerly Biden-supporting friends have shut up - completely. They aren't defending Biden & Family, they aren't boldly putting up their support in Shared stories about the wonders of the incoming President, they aren't interacting much, at all.

They have crawled into their snug holes, and are drinking wine and cocoa, soothing themselves with their mantra:

Orange Man Bad - AND Not My President!

When asked, What about Hunter Biden? They just repeat the equivalent of La-La-La-La, I can't HEAR you!

Fake News!

Conspiracy Theory

He lost - get OVER it!

What they don't do is to make a cogent argument supporting their position.

Because there is none.

Nor is there a decent defence for the observed abuses, frauds, and assorted shenigans of the voting process.

The news is, for the most part, NOT showing the videos of the GA steal. They are showing selected portions, accompanied by their commentary - "See, there is NOTHING unusual about this! Those that say there is are Conspiracy Nuts".

But, the Silence of the Dems speaks louder than their words.

They're scared - VERY scared. This has the potential to bring a lot of icky stuff to the surface, put many politicians in the crosshairs, and bring down the Dems.

Let us pray.

Don’t Kid Yourself (UPDATED)

     Yes, I know I said I wouldn’t return to this subject, but this appeared yesterday evening at InstaPundit:

     Thought experiment. There are five Democrat justices on the Supreme Court. There was a Democrat president who just ran for reelection. He supposedly lost, but virtually all Democrat voters believe that massive fraud in several Republican controlled states caused him to lose. Many Democrat attorneys general file a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court, essentially identical to the one that is pending now.

     Does anyone believe for a second that those five Democrat justices wouldn’t do absolutely anything necessary to make sure the Democrat control of the presidency was maintained?

     The point should be clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

     By and large, we in the Right have been scrupulous about following established rules and procedures. In normal times that’s an admirable thing. But these are not normal times. One side – to be clear, there’s the pro-Constitution, pro-American side and there’s the Democrats – has thrown away the rules as an impediment to its schemes. But unless both sides play by the rules – the same set of previously agreed-upon rules — there are no rules and there can be no applicable conception of fairness.

     “When you throw away the rules, that’s the end of the game.” – Rock Hudson as President Tom McKenna in World War III

     Unless whatever responsible authorities remain intervene, as they should, to prevent the theft of the presidential election, the “American game,” better known as the United States of America as defined by its Constitution and the subsidiary constitutions and charters of the fifty states, will have ended. No rules; no game. No America. Just war: continuous, occasionally visible war between the people of the (former) United States and a soi-disant “Establishment” / “political class” / “ruling elite” determined to impose its will on us. There’s no way to prettify it.

     To close, have another thought experiment: Imagine that the Supreme Court hears the Texas case against the validity of Pennsylvania’s election horror. Imagine that it rules for Texas and its amici curiae: i.e., that Pennsylvania’s election is deemed invalid and its electoral college votes are not to be counted on January 6. Do you think the Democrats would accept SCOTUS’s ruling, say “Oh well, I guess we lost, better luck next time” and settle down?

     Don’t kid yourself.

     UPDATE:

Rule by the disturbed.

The debt that washes over the world is astronomical. Fictions like modern monetary theory are absurd, specious attempts to put lipstick on that pig of current reckless, stupid, and irresponsible practice by the bestest of the most bestest Wunderkindern who pour forth from our vaunted institutions of higher learning. (Scare quotes on back order otherwise they'd festoon the last sentence.)

Current enlightened practice is to kick the can down the road, to use technical economic terminology, but arithmetic is soon going to burst forth from the body politic in a way that would scare even the formidable Sigourney Weaver. "Remember me?"

The fact that the political class is mum about how this is going to turn out and loathe to discuss anything that might be identifiable as a planeroonie is kind of like a klooh that there is a giant green weenie in all our futures. The closest thing is "The Great Reset" which has the half life of the Manson Gang way I see it and seems to have basically the same methods in mind. I guess there's a magic wand in there somewhere to make Mr. Killer Debt just go away.

Global debt is expected to soar to a record $277 trillion by the end of the year, according to the Institute of International Finance. Developed markets’ total debt—government, corporate, and households—jumped to 432 percent of GDP in the third quarter. Emerging market debt-to-GDP hit nearly 250 percent in the third quarter, with China reaching 335 percent, and for the year the ratio is expected to reach about 365 percent of global GDP. Most of this massive increase of $15 trillion in one year comes from government and corporates’ response to the pandemic. However, we must remember that the total debt figure had already reached record highs in 2019, before any pandemic and in a period of growth.[1]
It's probably nothing.

Notes
[1] "The "Great Reset" And Plans For A Global War On Savings." By Daniel Lacalle (The Mises Institute), ZeroHedge, 12/9/20 (emphasis removed).

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

I Am Not Making This Up Department.

CNN recently argued that “decriminalizing sex work” would serve as a key to “rebuilding the economy,” proposing that presumed President-elect Joe Biden's administration should create a sex worker task force.

In her outrageous opinion piece, which was titled "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, here’s how you can rebuild the economy: Decriminalize sex work," immigration attorney Sabrina Talukder advocates for the “removal of criminal penalties for the buying and selling of sexual acts.” [1]

This give new meaning to the concept of "stimulus."

Notes
[1] "CNN Floats ‘Decriminalizing Sex Work’ As Key to ‘Rebuilding Economy.’" By Marty Walsh, Trending Politics, 12/9/20.

Dancing on the Edge of a Volcano?

Yeah, it sure does look as though Our Beloved Overlords are.

One point this post makes strikes me as a realistic assessment:

To enjoy mass support, a revolt needs to have a legitimate grievance – something egregious most folks can sympathize with. It also has to enrage people on a moral level – beyond what than they can’t bury in escapism and creature comforts…

…well, you don’t get much more sympathetic than “stealing elections.” And the powers that be have Bubba’s undivided attention now – and not in a good way. All the energy that was going into Sports (ratings dead), Movies (pandemic dead), and Video Games (SJW infected and dying), is getting channeled into Joe-Six-Pack contemplating who he needs to shoot to stop Tranny-Story-Hour and get his kid’s football season running again.

The small creature comforts tip the scales in the end. And those are being strangled by the fools who benefit most from them. The accumulation of one-thousand slights adds up over time. Every cruel cut and overreach remembered – until no amount of escapism, avoidance and appeasement can suppress the anger. Particularly when the left’s cultists have made those avenues deliberately unbearable.

The thing people on the Left (and those Leaning that way) don't get - we're MORE informed than they are about basic things.

 We've actually READ the Constitution. We're familiar with the original words, AND how they were intended by the signers. We don't depend on getting pre-digested opinions, or News-Lite. They do. So, when we refer to the 2nd Amendment, our understanding is solid.

Oh, sure, there are always fringe-y people, on both sides. On our side, generally, are the "US currency is not based on gold/silver, therefore I don't have to pay taxes" folks. We nod, and look to sidle away at the first opportunity.

They have the wild-eyed crazies, too. I neither blame them for that, nor assume that they represent the thinking of the average person on the Left.

But, aside from those people, they really are ignorant of actual news. If it wasn't on the Official Media, it didn't happen. So, when you reference Clive Bundy, they just give you blank looks. A very few may respond, "Isn't he that guy that killed a lot of people?" The actual circumstances - an armed standoff with no casualties - is NOT known.

They honestly believe that the theft of the election did not happen. After all, everyone they know agrees that there is no proof - and the few pieces of evidence that might tend to call that opinion into question have been de-bunked. Completely.

So, concede already. Biden IS the President. Any objection to that is TREASON and TYRANNY.

Every day, more evidence is uncovered that, not only is the theft obvious, but that China may have been behind much of it, and a whole lot more.

They're sitting there, like this:


I'm sick at heart; many in my family are complacent and uncaring. They will not act - unless they get threatened or very uncomfortable.

And, then, it may be too late.

That Hoary Old Colloquial Definition Of Insanity

     I haven’t been writing nearly as much as previously for Liberty’s Torch these past few weeks. The reason can be found in the title of this piece. In essence, I feel that I’ve been repeating myself, and that to go on doing so would be pointless. Have I been saying things most other commentators are unwilling to say? Perhaps. But that doesn’t matter if the audience is lacking, or unwilling to listen.

     The Republic has fallen. Our “public institutions” are corrupt from top to bottom. The officeholders in whom we’ve reposed our hopes are cowards, almost without exception. “The law” is a farce used to subjugate honest, decent Americans while thugs, grifters, the political class, and the connected get away with anything, up to and including murder. (Cf. Sam Francis, “anarcho-tyranny.”) Those we have trusted to preserve America as it was founded have abdicated the responsibility.

     Do you really expect the Supreme Court to invalidate the electoral college votes of several states – on any grounds? I suppose it’s possible, but how likely is it? Supreme Court Justices have lives, homes, and loved ones just like you and me. Were they to take decisive action, the Left would target them personally. Why do we expect them not to be deterred by fear of the consequences?

     The Left is winning because its leaders know that violence trumps speech – and that we in the Right are unwilling to counter its violence with still greater violence. As in Weimar Germany, a violent minority is being permitted free rein to terrorize the nation into submission.

     Yet there are still persons who claim that the pressing need is to speak out, nothing more than that. Willful blindness knows no more blatant manifestation.


     I am indebted to Co-Conspirator Colonel Bunny for linking to this piece. While Gregory Hood’s essay is somewhat discursive, he says several things that must be said. However, he fails to recognize the implications of his own arguments. Here’s what I mean:

     We need only a small number of people who can speak out without being socially and financially ruined....The movement in-fighting will fade, because it is easier to unite in opposition and there will be no more tactical debates about whether to defend Donald Trump.

     Who would seriously claim that persons in the Right have not been “speaking out” up to now? The volume of our voices has been stupendous. What has it achieved? Why expect that it would achieve anything more once we’re “in opposition?”

     Violence trumps speech. The Left has embraced violence. If our “opposition” remains resolved to proceed solely with “speech,” the Left will roll roughshod over us. As we mathematical types like to say, quod erat demonstrandum.

     As I commented to Hood’s essay:

     “Social and financial” ruination are only the beginning. Just about everyone is vulnerable physically: in his business, his home, his loved ones, and his person. The Left, energized by the lack of a forcible response to its assaults and vandalisms of commercial properties, will not refrain from assaulting private citizens and their personal properties. Only a couple of days ago, a Michigan Trump supporter's house was literally bombed. Police response? None. They're afraid of being targeted too.

     If we are to be free, we must go to war -- war to the knife -- and it will be terrible. The alternative is enslavement.

     Having said that puts me in a category I hate to occupy: one who exhorts others to do what he cannot do himself.


     Because of the above, I haven’t been writing much, and what I’ve written has almost completely avoided the stolen election and what’s likely to follow. I am personally incapable of doing anything materially constructive. To sit here and blather endlessly about what others should do is ludicrous. At this point, any American with an IQ above room temperature knows the battle line has been drawn, and on which side of it he stands. My prattling on about it will add nothing to the affair.

     That having been said, I’ll say it one last time: You want the Republic back? You want the freedom your forebears enjoyed? You can’t have it unless you’re willing to go to war:

  • Lock, load, and march on your state capital;
  • Remove every officeholder from his position – forcibly, not by “voting him out;”
  • Decorate lampposts with the ones who won’t go quietly;
  • Reload your magazines and do the same to Washington, D.C.

     It would have to be a clean sweep, Democrats and Republicans alike. None of them can be trusted. They are all beneficiaries of an Establishmentarian system that protects and rewards those who “go along to get along.” The demonstrations have been innumerable.

     Then the really hard work would begin. But that’s a subject for another time.


     One final observation before I close. Here’s the latest on the Supreme Court cases about the election:

     The Democrat leaders who promoted massive mail-in ballots and due dates up to three days after the election responded to Justice Alito per Law and Crime:

     As Joe Hoft puts it, “Basically what the brilliant minds from the left claimed is that – no one has ever stopped us before so don’t be the first.” And I must tell you, Gentle Reader: That argument has a fair chance of prevailing. In law as nowhere else, precedent has stunning, often overwhelming power. As Alan Dershowitz put it semi-comically in his book The Best Defense:

     ...there are no Nobel Prizes in law, because law is the only profession in which you lose points for originality and gain points for demonstrating that somebody else thought of your idea first. Lawyers are prone to look to the “authorities”—to past lawyers and judges—for their ideas. Creativity in the law consists largely of analyzing past cases so as to get around a barrier or move the law incrementally. Rarely do lawyers indulge in bold leaps of faith, in grand conceptual breakthroughs. (I recall my high school Talmud teacher once putting me down with the following “Catch-22” response for claiming that an idea I had was original: “If what you’re saying is such a good idea, then obviously the old rabbis, who were much smarter than you, must have thought of it first. And if the old rabbis, who were much smarter than you, didn’t think of it first, then it can’t be such a good idea.”)

     Have a nice day.

The Answer to AntiFa Violence

Spray Paint - LUMINOUS spray paint.

Delivered in paintgun form.

No need to get close. No need to get within a dangerous distance.

Just have a few people stationed at strategic points, and aim.

You will ruin their clothing, make it difficult for them to melt away in the dark, and raise the cost of engaging in a little "harmless" street action against the "Fashists" (really, mostly Normal people fed up with their $hit).

The Black kids, especially, will go NUTS. Even a minor injury to their AntiFashion can drive them insane.

Deliberately defacing their quite expensive clothing will make them cry.

Plus, if they try to re-use the now-splattered clothing, they will be more identifiable as individuals.

Win-Win.

No more of this crap.

Defined out of existence.

At least that's the goal.
Furthermore, whatever white advocates, conservatives, nationalists, or Trump supporters may think, we aren’t in power. We are not even allowed to define ourselves. Those with power do. The system in power, and those who control it, are objectively opposed to whites. The legal system works against us. Economic elites fund Black Lives Matter, not American Renaissance. Blacks are far more likely to attack whites than vice versa, but our rulers and opponents say blacks are the victims. They claim to see white racism everywhere. They may even believe it, but that doesn’t make it true.
"First Principles and What We Can Do Now." By Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, 12/4/20.

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Straight Talk from a Brit About the USA

 This is an EPIC smackdown to the Left.

Follow the Data - Um, Not so Fast

 When the data contradicts the Official Leftist Message, ignore the data.

Reading "A Promised Land" - Chapters 1-4

I was notified yesterday that my reserved library loan of "A Promised Land", by Barack Obama, was available. Fortunately, I got an e-copy, as this is a Whopping 768 pages of crap. 

The first thing I noticed is that, apparently, Barack really DID write this book. How could I tell? The writing was pedestrian, plodding, and NOT inspired. Obama is not a good writer - and, definitely NOT a great one. I read his first book, and it was, at least, the product of someone who knew how to write a gripping story (just how much a story it was, I'll leave to someone who analyzed the product).

I pity the person who creates the Audible version of this; Obama is addicted do PAGES-LONG sentences, with barely a comma or semicolon in the paragraphs. The first few times, I thought it was an anomaly; after the first couple of chapters, I realized he just doesn't know how to stop. His meandering speeches, filled with verbiage, are just Who He Is.

One thing that I noticed is that he repeatedly uses "and" in writing about strings of connected examples, rather than separating them with commas. And, he often finishes off that lengthy string with the lame and weak generalized object "things".

So. Not a gifted writer. Clumsy with his sentences, and tending to run on and on and on and on and on (see how catching it is?).

But, what about the story?

Eh.

He wraps that story in a flood of words, designed to obscure the fact that he is revealing nothing new. He dances around his dirtier political tricks (that TWO different politicians had their court-ordered marital records unsealed to destroy their campaigns), and airily mentions that the media got their hands on the records, with no interest in his finding out just who, of the interested parties in his campaign, might have managed to make this happen.

It just happened, 'ya know'.

Get over it - yesterday's news.

He similarly glosses over his wife's opposition to his political ambitions. Although he promises her that she will be the deciding vote on future campaigns, he brings in other people to pressure her to go along, again and again.

It's enough to almost make you have sympathy for Michelle.

Almost.

There are moments of candor in the book. Obama admits his disinclination to work hard in school as a teen. He admits to his drinking, although he skims over details of his drug use. His time at Occidental is remembered in more detail - particularly the way he took over control of class discussions. That candor about his wordiness rings true, as does his recognition that he used words to cover his lack of depth in knowledge of his subject.

The Columbia years? VERY little. Suspiciously little detail. That might, in part, be covered by the fact that he was, according to his previous 'writing' about those years, wasted much of the time.

He also says little of note about the Community Organizing years, other than the broad outlines of what is known. No mention of Saul Alinsky, and his influence on the work. Nothing of Bill Ayers or other radicals. Air-brushed out of existence - this is the book that will shape the Official Story.

I do hope that you all appreciate just how much I'm sacrificing for your enlightenment. I also hope you don't spend your hard-earned money to buy a copy - it's NOT worth it.

This Will NOT be an Administration "Helping Black People"

Rather, the only Black people to benefit will be those ones that 'go along with the program'. NOT middle-class people with religious values. NOT entrepreneurs. NOT those families that work to pay their bills. NOT those families that put their children's future ahead of ideology. Only Black people who are compliant to Democrat directives.

Pearls of expression.

Comment by Schlongtavious Lardmaster on a CBS report that "Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson says armed protesters [not remotely being leftists] gathered outside her home on Saturday night, 'shouting obscenities and chanting into bullhorns in the dark of night.'":
I am surprised the report wasn’t more biased such as “the armed protesters were armed with firearms including machine guns, automatic weapons and assault rifles with high capacity clips. They also were armed with unconcealed revolvers with oversized clips. And I’d [if] we didn’t mention it, the armed protesters were armed with firearms”.

Disclaimer - Erroneous descriptions are used to illustrate how the media reports, and do not represent my knowledge of firearms, if I owned any, before they were lost in a tragic boating accident.[1]

[1] "Payback in Michigan." By Don Surber, 12/7/20.

Monday, December 7, 2020

Traps And Swindles

     Chessplayers are familiar with the above terms. Success at laying a trap for one’s opponent, when said opponent has a superior, nominally winning position, accounts for many a famous victory. A swindle is a form of trap, less well known and less frequently celebrated, in which one lures one’s opponent into an attractive course, seemingly a straightforward march toward victory, in which he must settle for a draw.

     Politics has the equivalents, of course.

     Our favorite Graybeard recently wrote about a significant trap. On the surface it looks like one of the Left’s pseudo-“compassionate” initiatives:

     Since the first rumblings of the potential Biden administration, the idea of "forgiving" student loans has gotten talked about a lot; whether from Elizabeth Warren or AOC, we keep hearing "progressives" clamoring for the handout. Clearly the loans can't be forgiven; money is owed to some bank, (which is to say some one) and the Feds can't wave their hands and make the banks take that loss, so that will mean taking money from some taxpayers to pay other taxpayers. It takes a study from someone relatively neutral to show just how fair that is.

     The top 20% of income earners will get $192 billion in tax money; the bottom 20% will get $29 billion. The richest income earners will get over 6-1/2 times the money as the bottom 20%. Since the lowest quintile of income earners pays almost no tax and gets more in benefits than they pay, they are essentially getting a bigger tax break. The middle class and higher will pay for this program. Our tax system is highly progressive, meaning the more one earns the more tax they pay. The last numbers I can find having blogged about (using 2016 data) is that:

  • The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

     This idea is a highly regressive tax policy in that the richer they are, the more tax payout they get.

     Please read the whole column. Graybeard’s analysis of the deception involved is eminently worth your time, and definitely worth remembering for the off chance that you’ll someday confront a dimbulb “progressive” and feel the need to box his ears – rhetorically, of course.

     By and large the people promoting this lunacy aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing. Some hope to profit monetarily by it, though in this particular case of a proposed policy it would be hard to pull off. So we must ask, “Apart from bribing millions of college-educated Americans, what do they hope to accomplish this way?”

     Mind you, bribing millions of college-educated Americans with Treasury funds is a substantial political goal by itself. But I sense another agenda, one that hasn’t yet been widely discussed. It goes to the heart of the Left’s “long march through the institutions,” which has succeeded most visibly in its conquest of America’s educational institutions.

     The rise in the cost of government-controlled schools – and don’t kid yourself; the “public” schools in your district are as much an arm of government as any state or federal bureaucracy – has had several effects. The most obvious one is to increase the cost of living sharply, forcing many American families to send the wife to work. The next most obvious has been a continuous struggle over how all that “funding” will be used: for the “disadvantaged,” or for the “gifted,” or for “activities,” or for “social involvement,” or what have you. Before the public schools started to bloat their agendas beyond literacy, numeracy, and historical and civic awareness, the budgets were too small to attract the really big predators. Today, when even small districts’ have millions of dollars to be allocated, the struggles have become vicious and the contestants utterly ruthless.

     Just beyond those two effects lies a third one that goes unnoticed by all but the most concerned parents: the cost of the “public” schools has made it impossible for 99% of Americans to afford a private alternative.

     Significant? Think about it. The Left has achieved near-perfect control of the “public” schools. That control has allowed them to replace education with indoctrination. The sole challenge to its hegemony has always been private education, whether religious or secular. However, if parents, by reason of the enormous property tax burdens they suffer, cannot afford to send their kids to private or religious schools, the Left need not fear them. What remains is homeschooling, which most parents feel unready to attempt.

     At this time, the operating costs of institutions of higher learning are paid by a combination of student tuitions and fees and state and federal subsidies. The portion that’s defrayed by student payments is largely funded by student loans. All such loans are now administered by the federal government’s Department of Education. Simply fill out a “Free Application for Federal Student Aid” (FAFSA) form, and you’re likely to receive a substantial part of the cost of your college education as a federal or federally-brokered loan.

     It’s all very simple...and it’s the quickest route to post-college financial hell ever contrived.

     The federal government’s involvement in the financing of higher education has been the means whereby Washington has imposed massive amounts of regulation on colleges and universities. The attitude of the DoE is that if a college or any student that attends it receives even one dollar from a federal source, it thereby becomes subject to any and all regulations the DoE may choose to impose on it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way for a college to escape that web except by refusing to accept federal money, whether as a subsidy or as part payment of a student’s tuition.

     One institution of higher education, Hillsdale College in Michigan, has chosen to forgo federal money altogether, and so has remained out of the regulatory web. There may be others, but I don’t know of them. But what would become of such colleges were it to become common practice for student borrowers to default on their loans and for the federal government to accept the obligations in their place? For such students, college would become essentially free of cost. Would colleges that put up any form of resistance to such amorality be able to attract students?

     “Student debt forgiveness” thus reveals another consequence that the Left probably slavers over: “No college shall escape our clutches!” Any alternative to federally controlled higher education would be pressed to the point of elimination, using taxpayer monies. The indoctrination of young Americans would become universal and uniform.

     Add the above to Graybeard’s thoughts. Do you see the traps? What can we do to avert them?

The Light at the End of the Tech Tunnel

This information about Google, and, by extension, other Big Tech Giants, shows that - far from being the Masters of the Universe - they are Dinosaurs.

And, the Dominance-Destroying Comet is fast approaching. 

More Things the Media "Forgot" to Mention

 Did you know that a known Communist organization was the predecessor of Students for a Democratic Society? Funny how that just "Happened" to not be in the Official Story?

If you don't have the extension that re-directs your Wikipedia searches to Infogalactic, get it. You can go here, and look at the sidebar for the link. It's available for Chrome/Chromium, Brave, and Firefox browsers. It takes a lot of the bias out of your encyclopedia searches.

The news media has a lot to apologize for, when the People finally re-take the Republic. That's assuming that we will be satisfied with lame apologies. And, while we're at it, let's de-credential most of the historians, and their allies, the Social Studies departments, both university level and K-12.

It's going to take a while to re-write the history books, focusing on actual events and the stories behind them. If you know any good history texts for middle school/high school level, put the information in the comments:

  • Name
  • Author(s)
  • Publisher/ISBN
  • Date of publication
I'd like to start making a list for homeschoolers/book buying committees to select from.

When You See the Calls for Republicans to "Meet in the Middle"

Remember this. The Left isn't interested in compromise - like the Old Mafia, for them, compromise means, "Do it OUR Way!"

When I was taking a classon Latin American history, many years ago, my professor was explaining the difference between how Hispanics use the term vs. how Americans use it.

For us, Compromise means "We'll each give a little on our demands, and we'll find a middle point at which we can agree. BOTH give up on the more extreme demands, or, at least, modify them."

For the Hispanic world (and, I suspect, much of the REST of the world), compromise means, "I wear you down, and THIS time I get EVERYTHING I want. You settle for a 'promise' that you will later get everything YOU want."

And, when that later time comes, the other side says, "What! That was THAT group that agreed to it. We want to negotiate again - fresh."

Never forget that the Left is operating from a similar playbook. They have no intention of living up to their 'promises'.

Sunday, December 6, 2020

More Deplatforming

 Watt's Up With That is down, preparatory to moving to another site.

Starting to look like a coordinated effort.

Peak cynicism.

Comment on an article about abolishing internal combustion cars:
The Kleptocrat Oligarch(s) Crime Family(s) uniPARTY Government employee union and its Corporations agents official narrative is never the real story for their electric "emissions" RESET.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall on "Japan Set To Abolish Gas Powered Cars By Mid 2030s." By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, 12/6/20.