Why the Pro-Maskers Are SO Ready to Exact Retribution on the "Q-M2" Types

It's a long argument, and requires some patience. It also leans on my understanding of the PMMs (Pro-Mandatory Maskers), and how they reason.

BTW, Q-M2 people are those who Question Mandatory Masks.

First, some assumptions:

• Some of the PMMs work in high-risk fields - Medical/Nursing, Heavy Public Contact, Teaching (those germy little buggers are EVERYWHERE), etc. They wouldn't be human if they weren't concerned, and anxious to reduce their vulnerability.
• Some of the PMMs are in positions where failure to be Pro-Mandatory could cause them to lose their job or risk lawsuits. Really can't argue with looking after your own self.
• Some of the PMMs are anxious to put distance between themselves and famous non-maskers - Trump, for example. They fear that reliance on the actual science involved might put them in jeopardy of being lumped in with Bad Orange Man.
• Some are Karens - those people who yearn to be able to lay down rules for others, particularly when they can claim the high ground. In this case, THEY CARE ABOUT PEOPLE - you are a HEARTLESS KILLER!
• Some are just Drama Queens - not something new, there have always been whose primary way of dealing with the world is to over-dramatize their part in it.
• And, some are just going along with the crowd. Because going along is the easiest thing to do.

Now, the whole issue - to mask or not - is not that simple. It can be divided into:

• Masking around sick people - most, if not all, people would agree with that.
• Masking in crowded situations - most would say "OK" to that.
• Masking outside - there are those who do, but most people can't wait to exit a store or building, as eager to take off the mask as a woman is to shed that push-up bra upon closing the door to her house.And, despite the meme stating that government mandates bras, wearing them is optional (although, if the females do, Thank You!).
• And, MANDATORY masking, a government-imposed requirement, with penalties that may include fines, arrest, and even imprisonment.

That last is what is causing MOST of the problem with me.

Most people will wear masks when necessary. Cases like that celebrity who held a big mask-less party, then toddled off to visit his elderly relative - well, those are rare. Most of us, when it involves close contact with actual sick or immuno-compromised people, will sigh, pull on the covering, and comply with their demands.

Even though it's been recently proven that those without symptoms are generally NOT contagious.

But, others are scared. So...easier to go along - in the short term, for limited times.

What some have a problem with is keeping the mask on for extended periods of time. Yeah, yeah, I know it's the norm in operating rooms.

But, when the doctors and nurses leave, the first thing they do is to take off the mask.

What happens when you can NEVER take off the mask, all day, every day. Even on breaks. Even at lunch. Even when the mask makes it very hard for the hearing impaired to understand you. It's worse in many large offices, where the fad for Open Offices has made distancing yourself just not possible. Worse, Shared Co-Spaces are common in many businesses in the New Economy.

What happens when the police tell you to put on a mask? Even hand you a mask.

And, you still refuse?

Will they wrestle you into the back of the police car?

Will they do it if you're Black? If there is a crowd that is yelling "Police Brutality"?

Or, will all of this just affect the White part of the population?

What about the crazy homeless? Will they be arrested?

Or, just the sane ones?

What if citizens take this into their own hands, and attack the mask-less? Will they face jail time? Or, will their actions be excused, because the mask-less person was CLEARLY trying to kill them?

The ZMan has some important things to say about the prevalence of contagion for most of us. I'd suggest you read it, soon.

Me? I'm busy; I have to complete Medicare Annual Re-certification this week, followed by other work-related stuff, working on Science Lessons with my husband, and - perhaps most important - set up my new laptop, scheduled to be delivered on this Thursday.

So, too busy to spend much more time on this topic for a while. Or, to bother with most Social Media.

Death Cult News

     Dear Holy Father Pope Francis: Inasmuch as you’ve been, ah, rewriting quite a lot of Christian doctrine, I must ask: Is “Thou shalt not kill” still in effect? You know, still binding? Or have you decreed a bunch of exceptions? Because we’re getting some “pushback” on it:

     Canada’s Supreme Court took democracy out of the death equation by conjuring a “right” to be made dead under very broad circumstances.

     Now, pressure is starting to force religiously-affiliated medical institutions and doctors to kill.

     After a Catholic hospital refused to euthanize a patient, who apparently received inadequate pain relief in the process of transfer, calls are being made to force Catholic and other faith institutions to commit what the Church considers a cardinal sin.

     Canada’s National Post reports on the keystone case:

     Ian Shearer had had enough of the pain and wanted a quick, peaceful end, his life marred by multiple afflictions.

     But the Vancouver man’s family says his last day alive became an excruciating ordeal after the Catholic-run hospital caring for him rebuffed his request for a doctor-assisted death, forcing him to transfer to another hospital.

     The combination of the cross-town trip and inadequate pain control left Shearer, 84, in agony through most of his final hours, says daughter Jan Lackie....

     Shearer’s experience at St. Paul’s Hospital highlights one of the thorniest issues concerning assisted death: the decision of most faith-based — but taxpayer-funded — health-care facilities to play no part in a practice made legal by the Supreme Court of Canada and federal legislation.

     [Emphasis added by FWP.]

     When the State pays the fiddler, the State calls the tune. That’s been established as “case law,” both in Canada and in the U.S., in a variety of settings. And so, in Canada’s “single payer” medical-care environment, the Canadian federal government can, if it so chooses, impose a legal requirement that Catholic hospitals kill its patients on request.

     The next question should be “On whose request?” What about patients who are, temporarily or otherwise, non compos mentis? And what about the “quality of life” opinions of governmental medical-care rationing commissions? To this point no one has addressed it openly, but you may be sure that the death cultists have been mulling it over.

     The Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch are surely bright and alert enough to see where this is headed. Why, a few of you are even Canadians, so I shan’t insult your intelligence by pressing it further. But American readers still uncertain about their choices in the upcoming election have some extra thinking to do.

     Just now, the Democrats in Congress are agitating for the transformation of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” a rolling disaster designed to be politically unworkable and financially unaffordable from the very first, into a Canadian-style single-payer system. Some of the advocates for such a system have even called for Medicare and Medicaid to be “integrated” into it, creating a single, no-escape system in which all life-or-death decisions would come under the purview of the federal government. And Hillary Rodham “I didn’t send or receive classified material on my gee-whiz / look-Ma homebrewed email server and anyway what difference at this point does it make?” Clinton is in favor of exactly that, as she established in 1993.

     Still think installing Donald Trump in the Oval Office is “too big a risk?” Think it over. Your life could depend on the answer. As for His Holiness’s opinion, I’ll let you know when he replies.

The Death Cults Advance

     The subject of death cultism, and the associated worship of death and its instruments, has been much on my mind lately. Time was, I produced a series of essays about it. No, they weren’t about Satanic rituals conducted by mental defectives, but about persons superficially indistinguishable from you and me, among whom death is treated as something sacramental...something to be sought or inflicted.

     Does anyone remember Terri Schindler-Schiavo? How about Amy Richards? More recently, we had this blatant admission by Mary Williams. And just this morning, the indispensable Sarah Hoyt points us to this...phenomenon:

     A Catholic nursing home in Belgium is reported to have fallen foul of the country's courts after refusing to permit a resident to access euthanasia.

     The incident happened in 2011 when Huize Sint-Augustinus home in Diest refused to allow an elderly woman's doctor access to see her – when it was thought she was about to be given a lethal injection.

     The home has been ordered to pay €6,000 (approx $6,600 or £5,000) in damaged to the family of the woman.

     The civil court in Louvain ruled that "the nursing home did not have the right to refuse euthanasia on the grounds of conscientious objection."

     In this case, the 74-year-old who had terminal cancer received the injection in her own house, rather than in the nursing home.

     The seal has been set on the Sacrament of Death:

• You may kill your unborn child, for any reason or none.
• If you run a “public accommodation” – i.e., any business of any sort anywhere – you must subsidize your employee’s choice to kill her unborn child.
• “Health care providers” may sentence you to death de facto, by refusing you “non-beneficial treatment.”
• As we can see from the article cited above, you can impose your desire to kill yourself even on those who disagree with you.
• And present trends continuing, you might soon be offered death simply because you’re “in the way” – and not be permitted to refuse the gift.

     And a goodly portion of the American electorate is cheering all these developments.

---

     I know that among my Gentle Readers are many who don’t believe in God. For such persons, the following will seem a non-statement:

Human life is sacred.

     It is given to us by forces utterly beyond our control. We cannot replicate those processes, nor can we forever thwart the processes that will eventually take our lives from us. If anything in human experience stands qualitatively above all the rest of the observable universe, it is human life: the tripartite entity comprising a flexible, adaptable body, a rational mind, and a morally aware soul.

     I consider the irreproducibility of human life by artifice to be one of the best evidences that we are more than we appear – that beyond the universe our senses perceive lies a higher and grander realm, ruled by a Maker to Whom we owe everything we are, that our souls are made in His image, and that they will survive the deaths of our bodies.

     How dare anyone destroy so precious a gift? How dare anyone assert a right to do so? How dare anyone compel dissenting others to collaborate with him in so vile an act?

     That subterranean chuckling you’re hearing that seems to echo from the walls of the universe? It comes from the being behind all the death cultists’ cults. You might say it was their founder.

---

     I know religious beliefs are personal things. An old friend with whom I was conversing on a related subject once made an interesting statement about religions. He said that all religions are individual – that no two persons who’ve ever lived agreed on every aspect of their faiths, no matter what label they might have shared. As regards parents’ attempts to instill their faiths in their children, he said that no matter how a parent might strive, his child’s faith would not be sincere until he’d made it his own – that until the child introduced some difference to it, he’d merely be “borrowing” his parent’s creed.

     Stipulate for the sake of argument that whatever labels we might apply to our faiths and ourselves, nevertheless each of us follows a personal religion with which no one else can totally concur. Is there no single tenet that all can accept? Can’t we all agree that human life is sacred, something beyond our ability to replicate that should be exempt from our penchant for unbounded interference?

     The State, of course, will always differ. Ask that Belgian nursing home.

---

     Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is legal in Belgium. Therefore, the Belgian authorities cannot prosecute Smith for having helped Jones to kill himself, as long as he can establish that Jones was willing to die and wanted Smith’s assistance. But the idea that an institution run by the Catholic Church, which today stands essentially alone against the death cults, should be forced to collaborate in an assisted suicide is something wholly different. It contradicts every notion of “freedom of conscience” to which the states of Europe supposedly assent.

     Europe was once called Christendom. Plainly, Christendom is no more.

     The writing’s been on the wall for several decades. The progress of the death cults in establishing hegemony over those of us who revere life has been more rapid than I expected. To these old eyes it appears that the game is down to the short strokes – that the assertion of limitless State authority over life and death at both ends of the process is nearly upon us.

     May God forgive us for not resisting the death cults while there was still time to do so.

The Penalty Of Death

Let's get one thing out of the way right up front: Capital punishment itself is clearly Constitutional:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger...

That's the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, just in case you haven't seen its text lately. (Yes, I added the emphasis; the Founders were terrible at HTML.) So the Supreme Law notes and tacitly permits execution, though the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments," would seem to qualify its application.

This, you may be assured, is highly vexing to the Left. Liberals' campaign against the death penalty has a long lineage, and despite never having acquired majority backing has succeeded in reducing the use of execution in several ingenious ways.

The most successful attacks on the death penalty have been through Eighth Amendment arguments against execution's "cruelty." If we must take a man's life, the argument runs, at least we can do so without making him suffer. This line of attack has been used to invalidate every method of execution ever employed in the United States:

• Hanging;
• Firing squad;
• The electric chair;
• The gas chamber;
• Lethal injection, by certain drugs.

...and has succeeded in preventing states that still employ the death penalty from using them, on the representation that they're unnecessarily painful, and therefore unConstitutionally cruel. In the case of lethal injection, which is still employed in some states, the assault has focused on the particular drugs used to terminate the condemned man's life. As effective drugs have been eliminated from the execution pharmacopeia, less effective ones have come into use, with the paradoxical effect of increasing the visible suffering of the condemned, thus strengthening the argument against capital punishment per se.

Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times presents us with some recent horror stories:

The executioners of Joseph Rudolph Wood, 55, were so long about it earlier this month — nearly two hours — that his lawyers had time to file an unusual emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in mid-execution for relief on humanitarian grounds. “He has been gasping and snorting for more than an hour,” his lawyers told the justices. “He is still alive.” The justices, perhaps eager to finally get away for their summer holiday, declined to stop it.

Wood began gasping shortly after the sedative midazolam and the painkiller hydromorphone were administered. Witnesses said Wood’s mouth dropped open, his chest expanded dramatically and then contracted, and they counted 600 violent gasps over the next 90 minutes. The director of the state Department of Corrections said he “conferred and collaborated with our IV team members and was assured that the inmate was comatose and never in pain or distress.”...

Ohio put Dennis McGuire to death in January with a cocktail of new and untested drugs that, if not mixed properly, cause unimaginable pain. McGuire screamed that he felt as if his body was on fire, and death did not follow his gasping and writhing on a gurney for 25 minutes. The Ohio attorney general had argued earlier, when his lawyer tried to block the execution with the untested drugs, that the U.S. Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment but “you’re not entitled to a pain-free execution.”

In April, Oklahoma tried for an hour to execute Clayton Lockett, a murderer and a rapist, while he lay convulsing and writhing on a gurney, and never succeeded. He died of a heart attack while waiting for the state to get on with it.

Pruden notes that such events have resulted in a significant conservative reaction against capital punishment:

Polls show that 80 percent of Republicans favor the death penalty, but a small but expanding group of conservatives argue that fealty to authentic conservatism leads away from capital punishment. Some of the names, ranging from Jeb Bush to Newt Gingrich to Rick Perry, are surprising. The death penalty is as popular as ever with many conservatives, but methods of dealing death are not. Inefficiency inevitably costs money, and wasteful government inefficiency, after all, is not a conservative virtue.

The reasoning will strike many persons as cruel in and of itself. Abolish the death penalty because it's inefficient? But keeping a condemned man around to the end of his natural life is pretty inefficient too! Add to that the extreme mental cruelty of imposing lifetime confinement without hope upon him, and the shadow of the Eighth Amendment begins to creep across the doorsill once more.

Constitutional or not, the Left's attack upon methods of execution has made deep inroads into Americans' willingness to have even the most vicious murderers put to death.

---

Is capital punishment something we ought to allow, Constitutional or not? Have two somewhat contrasting views on the subject. First, the argument against it:

"Deserves death? I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the very wise cannot see all ends." [From The Fellowship Of the Ring]

And for the contrary view:

"Once you know a man deserves to die, you have to kill him. If you don't, you're committing a crime against everyone who doesn't deserve to die. If you get him down but can't bring yourself to do it, and he gets up off the mat and kills you instead, you're only getting what you deserve yourself." [From On Broken Wings]

No, "be not too eager to deal out death." It's very good counsel. But we know that there are times when self-defense, or the defense of innocent others, requires the taking of a life. If it's licit at such times, why wouldn't it be permissible as a matter of dispassionate justice? Surely execution -- as a method of retribution for murder, at least -- is proportionate and confers protection upon anyone else the condemned might have menaced were he allowed to live.

The joker in the deck is, of course, that there's no way to reanimate a wrongly executed man. Any other form of punishment can be compensated for to some extent, should it be discovered that it landed upon an innocent party. But a dead man is beyond all such things.

The imperatives of justice, the needs of the bereaved for catharsis, and the putative security of other innocents must be balanced against two countervailing theses: cruelty, and the possibility of a mistaken execution. And though for many centuries the scale has tipped toward execution for the most heinous crimes, it begins to seem likely that sometime in the foreseeable future it will swing in the other direction. Whether we'll come to regret that, only time will tell.

No soup OR semi-autos for you!

A few days ago at Esquire.com, a tyrant made his pitch. He wants to re-educate Americans on the real meaning of Christmas, I mean the 2nd Amendment, and convince us to see that the e-e-e-vilest things in the world aren’t sparkly-uniformed & jackbooted killers like him, but guns…in the hands of civilians like me.

The lieutenant colonel who lectures us at Esquire doesn’t ring the death knell on the U.S. Liberty Bell for the actual Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Uncle-Joe Stalin, or even the leftist’s favorite “rightwing nutjob”-slash-tyrant, Adolph Hitler.

Nope. This mighty-military man answers to the leftist’s very own 21st century destroyer, President Barry Sotero. I mean Barrack Obama.

Sure the Esquire article is pure double-timing agitprop: meant to raise the spirits of the faithful gun-fearful, the hoplophobes, you know, the cheerleaders-for-confiscation. But it’s also meant to bring out the cries, shouts, and threats of the opposition, like me. See how well it’s working? And sure, if the pushback by pro-self-defense types is addressed at all they’ll be called “knee jerk” by the big-league media which is nearly all anti self-defense.

But in all this, what’s most important is the need to listen to and actually believe writers like Esquire’s guest, Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman. Particularly when they admit “at the end of the day his job is about killing.” When those wielding the Weapons-of-State, like this military man, freely call themselves killers and then go on to talk Gun Confiscation, damn straight, “I’m listening Seattle.”

And since it’s doubtful this uniformed career “killer” would go out on such an extreme anti-gun limb by himself, it’s safe to conjecture plenty of his fellow officers feel precisely the same.

So…there’s bad bad-news and good bad-news Liberty- and Security- lovers. The bad is that I guess they really are out to get you - and your guns. The good-slash-bad news is you really aren’t paranoid.

Generational Gun-confiscation. I began responding to this Esquire piece for one reason: for the last ten or eleven months (following the anti-gun tsunami that swept the nation one year ago, a.k.a. Sandy Hook) I’ve been thinking a lot about “generational gun confiscation.” I witnessed the instantaneous and monster-machinelike power of the popular media back then. It molded the narratives as dictated from the White House and pumped them over and over, ad infinitum, into the childlike sponge-minds of their consumers.

And it went something like this:

“Guns-are-bad-and-unnecessary; scary gun-nuts are worse than guns; what would best would be to get rid of them all.” Rinse; repeat.

So, grasshopper, you want to get rid of guns without another quote-unquote civil war? Simple. Patience, grasshopper.

Not quite like the patience of Job, in that while Obama & his friends in high places wait they’ll still have fine salaries, armed bodyguards, beautiful safe places to live, and terrific salve prescribing health-care plans. Because they’re special and the rulers and, well, you aren’t.

Not even like the patience of the Mohammedans, who’ve been peacefully chopping heads off and lovingly blowing up infidels who refuse to “submit” to their special book, non-stop, Oh…since the 7th century.

Nope, the patience to Get-the-Guns from pesky Americans need not reach the level of those two religious examples at all. Just the kind Lt. Col. Robert Bateman methodically explains for us in Esquire.

Bateman is right in this one point: it will only take one more generation. Though overall, his faux outrage at guns in America is wrong in so many ways, beginning with the so-called inciting incident of a Black-on-Black, likely alcohol-fueled, argument turned deadly-shooting,

By, say 2030, so few will have been taught, for example, how America had to supply its British allies in WWII with e-e-evil guns; so few will understand how Bateman butchers the 2nd Amendment in Esquire by turning it inot a purely State concept, never mentioning the original intent of the Founders which was based on real-world individuals providing their own singular and group-defense.

Bateman and Esquire both preach basically to the same crowd: urban, well-educated, guilty-white liberal Americans. This congregation of folks can’t imagine owning a gun because that fact alone would be an implied deadly-threat, just as they’d likely have a hard time raising a hand in their own defense - for fear of harming the would be criminal.

By the time the last quote-unquote illegal guns are grabbed, so few civilians will see the irony when the American jackbooted pawns of the State arrive. Will those disarmed, defanged, pacified onlookers deem American Enforcers’ armaments evil? Won’t they be intimidated or scared of what’s strapped on “the good guys’” hips and/or slung across their black-uniformed, anonymous helmeted bodies? No? Why not? Will they cheer as they did the similar show of State Force in Boston after the recent bombing, when these future storm troopers pry those quote-unquote-illegal personal weapons from the cold dead hands of those onlookers’ e-e-evil gun-nut neighbors and forefathers?

In the end the last old Grandpa Charlton Heston type won’t go out in a blaze of glory after all. He’ll simply have been waiting months or years for a heart bypass or some other old-age treatment; be passing some time peacefully cleaning the last old shotgun or rifle or handgun he gone years unable to find ammo for, when…Boom! Heart attack. Or some other old-age thing, and he’ll keel over, dead.

And finally old, grey, feeble, retired how-many-ever-starred General Bateman will be wheeled out for Obama’s Special Press Conference. And peace will reign in the gun-free U.S.A.. Oh, except for those owned and carried and used against defenseless civilians by the professional Federal and State killers. And except for those stashed away for a rainy day by the street criminals most of whom, even back in 2013, were/are Black or Hispanics (yet never got vilified like the NRA and generic white gun “nuts,” 99.9% of whom never shot a soul).

So check out the article at Esquire.com, and some of the comments as well; until next time, Keep Rebelling.

  This essay first appeared on the author’s YouTube-channel.

Red, White, and Blue blindness

The author in 1975. Way too trusting.

The next “greatest generation” could be home schooled Americans…if enough of them take a particular flavor of “red pill,” rather than the Red, White, and Blue one that too many seem to continue to swallow wholeheartedly.

While it’s terrific that home-schoolers in Texas anyway, say, “adios” to the public/government school system, it’s also sad they get locked into another one just as harmful: “my country, right or wrong.” For all the historical materials available, we still manage to raise teens eager to run off in service of the behemoth former President (and retired 5-star WWII Army general) Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about: “The Military-Industrial Complex.” But why?

Part of the answer may be due to the large numbers of Christian home-schoolers. Fine people, for the most part, who likely believe that the military is a good and necessary thing on the whole. Who wouldn’t come to this view by studying (and then certainly teaching) the founding of the United States? They see George Washington at the lead of a military put to noble use: that of securing (and then maintaining) the freedom of the original thirteen colonies’ inhabitants. They’ve heard him give credit to the “Almighty Being who rules over the Universe” and look forward to the “propitious smiles of Heaven” (1st inaugural address; April 30,1789) which await the nation that obeys heaven’s “eternal rules of order and right.”

But home-school parents: go further; use alternative texts and see how things changed After George. Here’s a book series that’s an easy cure for Red, White, and Blue blindness. The author is Richard Maybury and he writes easy-to-digest books, with short, concise chapters in the form of letters from an uncle to his nephew. Maybury is masterful at taking big concepts and cutting them down to size.

Have no fear. After reading this set of (mostly slim-) volumes his easy to picture (and recall) examples will make teaching fiat-currency and inflation; “natural/common law” versus “manmade (government) law;” and political corruption (including America’s foreign military entanglements from WWI, II, and the still ongoing “Thousand Year War in the Middle East”) second nature.

The truth about the bombing of Pearl Harbor set me free in the spring of 2010, while teaching Maybury’s, “World War II: The Rest of the Story and How it Affects You.” From that point onwards I knew if a president (Saint Franklin) and his people could lie to the country and proceed to feed millions of American men into his own personal War Machine, what wouldn’t an American president and his/her people be capable of lying about or covering up?

Answer: Nothing.

On this Veteran’s Day you need to know only one thing about your government and its lackeys. If their lips are moving they are probably lying. There is no glory or promotion or advantage of any kind for even a low-level bureaucrat in TELLING the TRUTH. Would the Military-man (or woman) recruiter, seeking warm bodies to fill their red, white, and blue pawn-quota, be any different?

The post (and linked articles) that got me thinking on this today is here.

"If It Saves One Life..."

On May 30th an ambulance was caused to stop, in the middle of the emergency transport to the hospital of a suspect who had been shot by police. The ambulance, operated by the Washington, DC Fire Department (Medic 19) was powered by a diesel engine equipped with an EPA mandated device which shuts the engine off when for any reason exhaust emissions fail to comply with government standards. The patient was pronounced dead at the hospital when he arrived there after being transferred to another ambulance. Asphyxiation has been ruled out as the cause of the patient's death.

DC Deputy Fire Chief John Donnelly says his department's challenge is to work within the federal agencies restrictions.

We should all feel relieved and safer as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency.