The Last Stand

     Apparently, what’s been widely rumored is true:

     I listened to Sid Rosenberg on WOR radio [CBS NY], and he said he’s hearing that the masks, lockdowns, and other restrictions are returning. They are coming back. You must resist. They are changing America, and that includes taking your freedoms away.
     […]
     This past week, Hollywood studio Lionsgate announced it was reinstating a COVID mask mandate for its employees. As we reported, Morris Brown College in Atlanta is reinstating its mandates for staff and students. Other colleges are following suit. Rutgers and Georgetown require indoor masking despite the evidence masks had no effect. Over 100 schools still require vaccination despite the myocarditis/pericarditis side effect.

     The Usurpers were so buoyed by their success the first time around that they’re betting they can get away with doing it again. Should they succeed, it will mean the end of all remaining individual freedom in these United States, including the freedom to assemble and the freedom to travel. Would anyone care to argue the point? Do you sincerely believe that a government that requires that you get its permission to leave your own home will respect any of your other rights?

     Convince me if you can. I stand with Scott Adams:

     Remember that your oppressors are willing to kill you for daring to defy them. If they’re willing to do that, how could they possibly be sincerely concerned about your health?

Things To Think About (UPDATED)

     First, an old commercial:

     Getty made more than one such commercial. (I think I have the full set.) They embedded the same premises. Whether they stimulated much thought is unclear. But the message is not.

     Now a picture:

     Reflect on that for a moment. Freedom must perforce include the freedom to choose one’s associates for oneself, regardless of the reasons or the context. Most of us would choose not to employ lawbreakers, for example. But apparently that’s forbidden by law as a form of “discrimination:”

     Biden’s Department Of Justice is now suing Elon Musk’s SpaceX for daring to require an employee to be a citizen or legal permanent resident in the United States of America in order to be employed by the company. In their press release, the DOJ explains that they’re suing because “SpaceX hired only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents” while they “refused to hire qualified asylees and refugee applicants and repeatedly rejected asylee and refugee applicants because of their citizenship status,” and even “discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for open positions.”
     I mean, it stands to reason that if one of the qualifications for employment is that the employee be a citizen or legal permanent resident, then non-citizen asylees and refugees aren’t actually “qualified applicants,” are they. They lack a major qualification for the job. And perhaps SpaceX discouraged them from applying because they knew they weren’t qualified for the position based on them not being citizens or lawful permanent residents.

     UPDATE: If you don’t believe it, here’s the DOJ’s press release.

     So try your best to stay on the right side of the law. You don’t want to be indicted for “attacking democracy,” do you? And of course, try to avoid “hate speech” like this:

     I need more coffee. Back in a bit.

When The World Is Too Much With Me

     I’m old: 71. The older I get, the less patience I have for a great many irritating and inconveniencing things. A barrage of those things will send me to one of my “escape hatches:” fiction; music; yard work; chess; weapons (this is a big one lately); cooking; or some other. Each of them possesses the power to divert me from my cares and restore me to calm. That’s a very good thing (cf. “weapons”).

     Music is an especially valued retreat. I can hide in the memories associated with it. It’s almost as good as a chronoscope that way. But as with all good things, there’s a price to be paid: I can remember too much.

     Memories of bad things, things that hurt badly or cost heavily, extract one sort of price. Yet most of those things have been more instructive than destructive. I unlearned many mistakes through the simple mechanism of suffering for having made them. I still wince at recalling them, of course, but I value the lessons they imparted.

     Remembering the good things can hurt a lot worse.

     I shan’t go into details. Rather, if you’re of a comparable age and feeling brave, listen to the song embedded below. I first heard and loved it in 1972. What memories does it bring back? Wince-able ones that remind you what a careless, thoughtless sort you were…and possibly still are from time to time? Or glorious ones that make you wish you could have frozen time right then and there, when you knew all the joy life could offer you…and hadn’t yet realized that the greater your joys, the worse it would hurt to have them slip away, as all joys must with the passage of time?

     Old friends: listen and remember. Young friends: if your time hasn’t come yet, consider dragging your feet a bit.

The Chronicle of The DC, 24 Aug 23: Fomenting Toxicities [Updated]

The same city that tolerates homelessness and welcomes illegals who add to it, could not be clueless as to the public health degradation that had to come with it.

The city of Los Angeles will issue a citation for washing one’s car in one’s driveway. The object was to penalize addition of untreated soap which will travel by sewers to the ocean. They based this on studies that considered all the complicated nutrients and by-products that contribute to algae growth — then concluded the run-off to be too environmentally unfriendly. Yet far worse additions to the open sewers they somehow never considered would be a consequence of their “liberal” open outdoor policies? What else is needed to recognize how nasty the enemy is? Dysentery brought to the first world is equitable — right? Or would you rather pass?

For a short synopsis of the report use this link. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TqTjjh4bUKE?feature=share (I’m sorry, but I could not get WordPress to embed it.) The full report is below.

This is only Los Angeles. But this agenda is coming to cities all across the Western world. Such policies are incrementally leading to our ill health, starvation, terrorism and death. Yet only a few major commentators forthrightly dare tell you that the powers that be (TPTB) are at war with each of you.

TPTB are determined to be ruthless in following their agenda. So expect no mercy from them. They are strict adherents to a religion, Survivabllity, that they do not openly profess, but their relentless progress to which they are enthralled is missed by only those too stupid, ignorant, naive, or cowed to speak of it. One might be labeled a conspiracy nut. Ooh. Self-censoring is self-denial of your most basic human rights.

Here’s a clue. Their belief is so strong that if you want to survive, if you want your loved ones to survive, it would be best that you adopt a belief system that is far stronger.

Here it is: Even if you have caused death, be it by accident or even by intent, you are not nearly as disgusting a human being as these death cultists. They are seeking victims on a scale that will swamp the death toll of the last century.

Simply repent of your past ill deeds, no matter how large or small, and join with the rest of decent humanity. We all turn to our Creator for help. He will listen to those who sincerely repent of past ill deeds. In that faith we will find a way to turn the tables. One individual at a time.

We outnumber them. They can’t operate their death machines without an army of competents for long. Everything they are doing is destroying the font of competence. Lack of people solid in mathematics is key, but it’s only part of it.

Faith in a Higher Power, and the courage that is fed by it, will supply our victory as it has so often in the past. The advancements of the modern age would have never happened without it. It will defeat the deranged, postmodernist Progs.

UPDATED to include a grace note queued up to where Bill Whittle almost says what I long to hear him say about L.A.: 

https://youtu.be/-e9cq2KrBfQ?t=876

“You can no longer explain this by stupidity. You just can’t….” He just fails to take it the rest of the way.

Targets And Guards

     If you’re a longtime Gentle Reader, you’ve surely seen this Clarence Carson quote before:

     [W]e are told that there is no need to fear the concentration of power in government so long as that power is checked by the electoral process. We are urged to believe that so long as we can express our disagreement in words, we have our full rights to disagree. Now both freedom of speech and the electoral process are important to liberty, but alone they are only the desiccated remains of liberty. However vigorously we may argue against foreign aid, our substance is still drained away in never-to-be-repaid loans. Quite often, there is not even a candidate to vote for who holds views remotely like my own. To vent one’s spleen against the graduated income tax may be healthy for the psyche, but one must still yield up his freedom of choice as to how his money will be spent when he pays it to the government. The voice of electors in government is not even proportioned to the tax contribution of individuals; thus, those who contribute more lose rather than gain by the “democratic process.” A majority of voters may decide that property cannot be used in such and such ways, but the liberty of the individual is diminished just as much as in that regard as if a dictator had decreed it. Those who believe in the redistribution of wealth should be free to redistribute their own, but they are undoubtedly limiting the freedom of others when they vote to redistribute theirs.

     I use it frequently because it’s important for several reasons. Most Americans are unaware of the amount of freedom that’s been taken from them. The above, which was written in 1964, sketches in the bare outline. The substance they delineate goes to every aspect of American life. Yet even then there was a semblance of opposition to ever-expanding government / ever-shrinking liberty. Now and then those who held freedom to be the highest political value would win a victory or two. The advocates of the Total State disliked that and sought ways to prevent it.

     What the statists found was that the “desiccated remains” they’d left to us were capable of mustering sufficient resistance to them, on occasion, to set them back for a while. To quench that possibility:

  • Freedom of expression had to be curtailed;
  • The electoral process had to be prevented from thwarting them.

     They hadn’t realized at the outset that free speech plus the franchise could seriously impede them. Yet now and then it did so, notably with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The emergence of the two-way World Wide Web threatened to make communications among freedom advocates too fluid and convenient to be withstood. If it were permitted to flower indefinitely, the game would be up for good. So freedom of expression had to go.

     The emergence of the “communications concentrators” – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – was vitally important to the statists. Those conveniences fatally weakened the “blogging culture” that was the bastion of freedom advocates. There were nearly 60 million blogs operated at its peak. Nearly all had comments sections, many of which were very lively. Owing to Facebook and twitter, the great majority of those blogs are either gone or idle. The concentrators had herded opinionated Americans into a small number of controllable pens, where their ability to be speak and be heard could be limited or suppressed completely.

     Then there was all that pesky voting. In a way it served the statists’ purposes, for they could point to vote totals – if they were sufficiently large, at least – as evidence of “support for the system.” But that turned sour when the voting went against them, so they decided that on balance elections were unfavorable to their aims…at least, if their opponents had a chance of winning them.

     Capturing the electoral processes involved advances on several fronts:

  • The Secretary of State project;
  • The multiplication of methods for committing vote fraud;
  • The reduction or elimination of mechanisms that promote election integrity.

     No Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch needs to be told how that turned out.

     If free expression could be completely squelched and elections corrupted nationwide, the statists would have dismantled the last guards against their complete and permanent hegemony. They’re very close to victory, as the 2020 and 2022 elections have demonstrated. If that victory occurs, it will be because statist strategists understood that the guards that protect a target must be taken down first. That’s the core principle in the study of systems vulnerability.

     Free expression and (relatively) honest electoral processes weren’t all-powerful guards for freedom. The history of the century past should suffice to establish that. But they were potent enough to allow freedom lovers the occasional triumph. Once the statists eliminate their vestiges, there will be nothing left but armed revolt.

     Just a few gloomy thoughts about the popular slogan acronymized as TINVOWOOT.

Skirting The Laws 101

     If you’re determined to break a law, the one thing you must not do is say so plainly. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down racial preferences in higher education, those “institutions of higher learning” that want to favor one race over the others must exercise some subtlety:

     The Biden administration is openly encouraging colleges and universities to ignore a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that forbade discrimination on the basis of race.
     Among the high court’s most anticipated rulings of its 2022-23 term was a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions that ended the practice of “affirmative action” — race-based admission practices.
     Or at least the high court purported to end affirmative action. But President Joe Biden is having none of it.
     […]
     It’s just a matter of replacing direct questions of an applicant’s race with something more subtle, according to Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
     He said that they would have tried to skirt the Supreme Court even without the White House’s blessing.
     “Colleges will continue using admission essays to give special treatment to favored identity groups,” he told Newsmax. “Several colleges have already added or altered essay questions in ways that will make it easier to identify an applicant’s race.”

     Antidiscrimination law is unenforceable as written, but it’s very useful as a political bludgeon. It will be enforced solely when it suits the ruling power – i.e., when it can be used against that power’s opponents. For elite universities to practice racial preferences “on the q.t.” is quite all right with the political elite. But don’t imagine that you could get away with preferential hiring in your little business. The crosshairs will be on your chest before you can recite Maxwell’s equations (integral form only, please).

     Any law that is not enforced and can’t be enforced weakens all other laws. — Robert A. Heinlein

     Thanks, Bob. They don’t listen when I say it. — Me

Interesting Contrasts Dept.

     Does anyone else remember how the mainstream media treated President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001? When Dubya received notice of the attack on the World Trade Center, he was reading a story to a classroom full of kids. He continued to do so for a few minutes before attending to the horrifying news from Manhattan. Media flacks screamed and shrieked and poured oceans of vitriol on him for not instantly dropping everything and flying to New York.

     The media’s treatment of “Sleepless Joe” Biden for his two-weeks-late reactions to recent events in Maui has been a bit different:

     LAHAINA, Hawaii — President Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrived in this grief-stricken community Monday afternoon, touring damage from one of the deadliest wildfires in American history and attempting to channel one of the president’s signature traits: comforting those who have lost loved ones.

     Read the rest, if you have a strong stomach for fawning and hypocrisy. Oh, and don’t you dare, you shameless right-winger, claim that Biden fell asleep at the memorial service:

     Conservative pundits used low-quality video on social media platforms Tuesday to spread a false claim that President Joe Biden fell asleep during a memorial for Maui wildfire victims.
     Fox News host Sean Hannity was among those who shared low-resolution video on X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter. Hannity’s post was viewed more than 425,000 times within a few hours, and similar videos posted by others received thousands more views on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

     Biden’s eyes were closed and his chin was practically resting on his upper chest…but he wasn’t asleep. He was just resting his eyes. How could you defame the man by saying otherwise?

     “Trust the mainstream media!!” — the mainstream media.

Newsworthy But Underreported

     Animal lovers pay attention to stories that feature animals in important roles. And no, it’s not all about skateboarding dogs or cats playing table tennis; we look for incidents in which animals have been important in people’s lives in unusual ways. We’re especially alert for incidents in which domesticated animals – pets – come to harm at the hands of humans, for that is a violation of the bond that unites us to our furry friends.

     Thus I was surprised to learn about the following incident, which took place three months ago:

     Employees and pets at a Maryland dog retreat narrowly escaped an SUV when the vehicle ran through Sniffers Doggie Retreat earlier this month.
     Video shows a typical day at the Rockville, Maryland facility, with a customer having a discussion at the front desk when a white SUV appears outside the front doors.
     The SUV appears to come to a stop at the curb and then moments later, it bursts through the glass doors and entry way at the dog retreat.
     Then it keeps going.
     The SUV plows into an office space where a trio of employees are shown running out of the room to avoid getting crushed.
     Then video shows the SUV continuing through the building before it comes to rest in the back room where the dog retreat has dozens of crates lined up for canine customers.

     Apparently neither humans nor dogs were harmed, though two dogs were briefly missing.

     Please watch the embedded video. The “authorities” have said repeatedly that “this was an accident.” But there was a driver at the wheel of that car. What kind of “accident” causes an SUV to power thirty feet into and through a building, plowing into doors, walls, furniture, and fixtures in three rooms, and then come to a stop? What was the driver doing? Was he unconscious or malevolent? And what will be his role in making Sniffers whole again?

     Applause to Mike Miles at 90 Miles from Tyranny for alerting me to this.

The Stories That American News Workers Won’t Do

The ‘revised’ stats for the first quarter of the report on the labor market are being – uh, MODIFIED.

Sharply downward.

I know, I know. That will come as SUCH a surprise to all of you.

Particularly the World Economic Forum (WEF), the reporters at CNN, and others.

Mark Judge has a nice piece in the Washington Examiner about American’s trust in the media, and the part he had to play in that change.

Why?

Well, the economy has been propped up by crony capitalism, government subsidies, and – uh, MISTATEMENTS/ERRONEOUS PROJECTIONS on financial reports (and, since ALL of those have to go before rigorous accounting oversight, let’s just say there’s a lot of accountants who are dupes and/or crooks).

Regular Americans – The Normals, as they have been called (or less nicely, The Deplorables) – have seen the handwriting on the wall. And, like their balance sheets, it is RED.

The nice – or not – thing about growing older is that we who do so have lived through multiple ups and downs in the economy. We’ve seen what politicians, bankers, and companies can do to our assets.

I’m old. I’m 72. And, my grandparents were born in 1895 and 1896. They lived long enough to pass on the stories about WWI, the Booming 20’s, The Depression, and WWII. My parents were adults during the post-WWII boom economy, the more sedate 50s, the Inflationary 60s and 70s (the inflation was whipped along by out of control government spending on entitlements, military purchases, and favored businesses). By the time Nixon came along, he caved in, and took us off the gold standard, thereby taking the lid off inflation – which burst forth like a pressurized gas.

I remember Stagflation – BOTH inflation, and heavy unemployment, with a dusting of OMZ-crazy rising interest rates.

Kids won’t know – it’s one of those outdated concepts in the Bible – but usury, which raises the interests to Mafia-level loan rates – used to be frowned upon. In Biblical days through much of the era of the Holy Roman Empire, it was both a sin, and a crime to charge more than state-permitted interest. It was made a crime because Jews didn’t follow the Christian prohibition on usury. It’s the practice that led to Jews being considered by many Christians as ‘money-grubbing’.

Now, that’s not really fair. The Jewish lenders would provide access to loans for those with poor credit/few assets. Naturally, as they were less likely to pay back the loan in full, the lenders set their rates high enough to offset the defaulters.

That’s not how the nations regarded it – they made it a crime, and were ruthless about exacting punishment for it.

In America, there were limits in every state to keep the interest rate from exceeding a certain level. Anything above that level could be CRIMINALLY prosecuted.

Now, the result of that is that getting a loan from a bank required assets, good credit, and the bankers reasoned assessment that, yes, you were likely to pay the loan back. Those new in town had difficulty getting credit, those without a lengthy job history in town, and those without any property (house or paid for car). Women, as few of them had regular access to money of their own, were generally denied credit. Contrary to what is said about the credit situation back then, if a woman had money of her own, under her control, she could get access to credit. Married women couldn’t count on it, particularly if their husband were feckless with finances.

MOST people rented their houses in the early years of their career, and often beyond. It was only the introduction of the GI Bill that permitted most of the vets to buy a STARTER home (a starter home was one that was TINY – often only 2 bedrooms and ONE bath, with a dinky yard). It was expected that such a home would accumulate equity, and provide the basis for moving to a larger house, or, if possible, adding onto the the house’s space (usually remodeling the attic or basement space for more bedrooms or family rooms). I was in my teens before I had a friend whose family had more than 1 bathroom.

As a result of frugal living, and with that boon of access to a starter home, many of the Boomer’s parents retired with a nice set of assets. That skyrocketed during the inflationary 70s, and again during the 80s, when home prices appreciated beyond all previous experience. My parents’ family home quadrupled in value, leaving them sufficient money to have a lengthy retirement.

I just checked on Zillow – the current value for my family’s former home is SEVENTEEN times what my parents paid for it!

And, they bought it at 4% interest, with $0 money down. Today’s interest rates are 7.5% and above, with a substantial down payment required.

It’s not that older people were financial geniuses, the system was one in which the average person pretty much had to be an idiot to NOT accumulate wealth. (I do realize that some categories of people – minorities, the disabled, and agriculture workers – did not have many of these opportunities).

It’s a toss of the dice. Sometimes, you get a good outcome.

Sometimes, it’s snake eyes.

My grandparents started out their marriage very well situated. My grandfather was a highly skilled welder, who owned his own profitable business. My grandmother came from a wealthy family. They employed a maid in their home, vacationed along the nicer beach resorts, and my grandmother had SEVERAL mink coats.

Then came the depression. My grandfather trusted a friend in trouble, and ended up going bankrupt when his friend defaulted on that loan. They were forced to sell nearly everything.

My grandmother pawned her very large diamond ring for $500, which she used for a down payment on a house with a garage in back. My grandfather picked up welding jobs, and she started a restaurant in her home.

They managed. They were frugal, and eventually were able to move on to a better home. They paid off that home, and used savings to buy a Florida home in Orlando.

When 3 bedroom homes with 1/2 acre of land were $2000.

Yeah, they hit the jackpot, purely from Walt Disney’s plan to build Disney World there. Most of the rest of the family relocated there, and profited from Orlando’s growth.

My husband and I bought our first home at 10% interest. We basically broke even when we had to move for work. Didn’t make that much over cost with our next two homes, either.

We did, however, manage to – FINALLY – do MUCH better than break even with the last home sale. How did we do that? Some of it was luck and timing. But, more importantly, WE BOUGHT A HOME THAT WAS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN WE WERE PRE-QUALIFIED TO BUY.

Too many people are in far more debt than they can afford. It only works if EVERYTHING goes perfectly.

Which it never does.

And, when the house of cards is hit by a light breeze, it collapses.

So, the FIRST rule is:

Reduce your debt – use the Dave Ramsey method to pay off ALL consumer debt. If your home is too expensive to manage, should you hit a crisis, sell it. Even if you have to take a bit of a loss. Better to lose a little money now, then make it up in lower housing costs, than to frantically attempt to stave off bankruptcy after the crisis.

I know I’m speaking to the choir here. Most of you already are prepping, hunkering down, stashing away money in assorted places, and living the life of someone who KNOWS the rain is coming. Don’t forget to pass along these warnings to your kids, your neighbors, and your colleagues at work.

After that, you can rest easy, knowing that you – like Noah – gave them fair warning.

I Should Speak Like This Guy

The following would be more effective had the ranter not singled out the Democratic Party for their continued twisted support for Brandon. The GOP is little better in that I’ve heard none of them come close to the justifiable outrage this man exhibits.

This rant is worth watching more than once. Let this serve as an example of how to overcome our socially engineered outrage suppression. We’ve been indoctrinated into silence, leaving the stage entirely in the hands of the radical Left. Although the Progs still have low modulated voices (Senator Palpatine types), they welcome and encourage not only loud voices, but rioting, arson, mayhem and murder and are allowed to get away with it. It is long past time that the social forces for decency started getting loud.

Be more like this man so that the voices of decency truly penetrate the thick heads of the indecent ones at the top.

I promise to expand on the immense value of raising your voice. One voice encourages so many others who think like you, but they, like you, have been convinced it is always the civilized thing to do to swallow one’s outrage or anger.

Moral Decisions

     One of the philosophers vitally important to the development of Western thought, Immanuel Kant, propounded some theses that have gotten him lambasted by…let us say…persons with another agenda. The Randians dislike Kant for having criticized “pure reason:” i.e., reason divorced from longstanding postulates, empirical data, and the yearnings of the soul. Many Christian polemicists find fault with Kant for daring to assert the importance of conscience in matters of right and wrong. And of course, authoritarians reject Kant for refusing to award the palm of sanctity to the State and its decrees. The old boy has quite a number of detractors.

     Kant wasn’t always right, of course. There has never been and probably will never be a mortal thinker who never makes a mistake or follows a false premise into the logical weeds. His style of argument, incredibly convoluted even for a metaphysician, doesn’t help his cause. Nevertheless, his thinking on metaphysics, particularly the methods of metaphysical reasoning he articulated, constitute one of the foundation stones for Western conceptions, especially our approach to the question beneath all other questions: What do we mean by ‘real?’

     One of Kant’s assertions that drew heavy fire from opponents is his claim that Man’s intuition provides items of knowledge that stand apart from other kinds. Indeed, he argued that the intuitive faculty is itself an epistemological primary: the way we apprehend space and time themselves. We don’t reason our way to them; we intuit them as realities prior to whatever our reason tells us about events within them. In Kantian metaphysics, without the aspects of reality we grasp intuitively, reason itself is impotent.

     But that wasn’t the area of thought that got Kant into serious trouble.

***

     Anyone who argues for the absolute moral authority of some institution (or group thereof) will have trouble with Kant’s argument for the primacy of reason as a moral authority. He was a particularly strong proponent of the conscience as a moral guide, though his defense of its soundness has been challenged by other thinkers as incompatible with his emphasis on reason. Still, in moral matters Kant’s prescriptions and proscriptions were all but indistinguishable from those of conventional Christianity. It prompted some of his critics to label him a theologian in philosopher’s clothing.

     Yet Christian thinkers were unsatisfied with Kant. He had proposed that intuition, conscience, and reason were the guides a man should trust – a clear departure from the Church’s assertion of its supreme authority over such things. That dissatisfaction with Kant continues to animate Christian thinkers even today. One of these is the highly articulate and multiply accomplished Dr. Anthony Esolen:

     No one can be relieved of the duty of forming his conscience,” said my interlocutor, who was a bit surprised when I said that no one can do that on his own, and no one should attempt it, since man’s capacity for self-deception is boundless.

     “Other people and institutions can be deceived, too.” He seemed to be well-read, so it was not entirely impossible that he had gotten the dictum from Kant, who says that it is all too comfortable for men to remain in a perpetual nonage, to have a spiritual advisor be their conscience, and governors to remind them all the time of the terrible dangers they run if they think for themselves.

     In one of the most ironic turns of human folly, that axiom, that in moral matters you must decide for yourself what kinds of things are good and evil.

     Dr. Esolen is a staunch defender of the authority of the Church. Naturally he’d be vexed by the assertion that there are other sources of moral authority that might differ with the Church and might be correct in doing so. Yet the Church has taught error on occasion, and continues to do so to this day. An institution made up of men will always be fallible. Its first error is always to claim otherwise, for that weakens its effective authority in the minds of those aware of the fallibility of Man…which is just about anyone and everyone who’s ever lived.

     In his pamphlet for inquirers, What It Means To Be Catholic, Father Joseph M. Champlin, whether intentionally or otherwise, underscores the problem:

     Catholics believe that an individual’s conscience is the ultimate determinant of what is wrong or right for that individual. Moreover, God will judge us according to the fidelity with which we have followed our conscience. Nevertheless, this conscience needs to be formed by objective standards of moral conduct. The Church provides us with just that — moral norms based on Jesus’s teachings, the inspired scriptures, centuries of tradition, and the laws of nature.
     These moral standards may seem at times to be inhibiting or restrictive. The fact is, that quite to the contrary, they release or liberate us. These norms both make us free, and lead us to the deep happiness that comes from following God’s plan. Jesus underscored that point when he said: If you live according to my teachings, you are truly my disciples; then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

     The “objective standards of moral conduct” cited above are available from the Gospels, which must be the core of all valid Church teaching. Jesus of Nazareth was a very clear speaker. (Would you have expected otherwise from the Son of God?) He never left His audience in any doubt about moral or ethical requirements. When asked “Which is the great commandment in the law?” He provided the supreme keys to all moral and ethical reasoning:

     But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
     Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

     [Matthew 22:34-40]

     God provides each of us with a conscience to illuminate questions that arise under those strictures:

     Fountain, who had been silent practically from the start of the session, spoke up at last.
     “Is that why we are told to listen to our consciences, Father?”
     Ray chuckled. “Thank you, Fountain. It is. The word ‘conscience’ means ‘knowing with.’ But knowing with whom? As we can’t read one another’s consciences, or transmit into them, it can only be God. Conscience is the channel God uses to help us make our judgment calls—which does not mean that if you and I make a particular one differently, then one of us is ‘wrong.’ You can never know what another person’s conscience has told him…or whether he’s really paid attention to it as he should.”
     “‘Judge not, that ye be not judged,’” Larry said.
     “Exactly,” Ray said. He pointed upward. “Do what you can with yourself, and leave the rest to Him.”
     “Glory be to God,” Domenico Monti whispered.

     [From In Vino]

     I promise to return to this, but right now it’s time for Mass. Have a nice day.

An Ugly Open Secret

     We know from interminable experience that the overwhelming majority of men who go into politics are utterly vile. The professional politician – and these days, for all practical purposes there is no other kind – is the lowest sort of man allowed to walk the streets today. Persons we wouldn’t be willing to have at our dinner table infest the halls of power so thickly that men of character are unable to endure the stench. Note in this connection that the “J6” protestors didn’t need to be expelled from the Capitol Building by force. They lingered there briefly. When they’d had all they could stand of the place, they left of their own wills.

     But this is the dynamic of politics. In The Road To Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek included a chapter titled “Why the Worst Get On Top,” in which he laid out the dynamic in the starkest possible terms. I’ve written about it sufficiently often that I see no need to explain it afresh.

     But if “the worst get on top,” that implies that should we seek to find the very worst, we must look at the very top. And so we must. Today, the worst man in public life occupies the White House: habitual liar, peculator, and fondler of children Joseph Robinette Biden.

     Biden’s dementia is on public display these days. While many commentators see that as his biggest demerit, I’ve begun to think that his handlers will soon use it for his exculpation from the worst of his gaffes and misdeeds. What else could they put into service to excuse these two incidents?

     Can you think of any rationalization that would serve a man claimed to be in full possession of his mental faculties?

     I’m powerfully tempted to call Biden soulless, but the teaching of the Church is that we are our souls, each and all. (Anyway, my pastor would pout at me.) If one cannot excise one’s soul, it might be possible to ignore it, or silence its voice. That voice is called the conscience. In a mentally and emotionally healthy person, it speaks of right and wrong. It poses questions whenever one ponders a course of action:

  • Is it righteous?
  • Is it prudent?
  • Is it possible?

     (C. S. Lewis had some harsh things to say about our propensity for evading those questions, but his thoughts concern the mental state of a fully aware, rational human being. That excludes the subject of this tirade.)

     Joe Biden dismisses those questions. It’s possible he’s no longer sufficiently aware to do so, but my money’s on his never having regarded them seriously.

     If he were sufficiently aware to be fully answerable for his deeds, I’d call him a sociopath.

***

     The distinguishing characteristic of the sociopath is his inability to see others as moral agents with rights of their own. To him, others are merely pieces to be moved about the gameboard of life. A few moments’ thought will suffice to see how that characteristic dovetails with the mindset of the contemporary politician.

     He who is willing to manipulate others for his own benefit without regard for their rights or priorities may nevertheless not be able to do so. The top-tier politician must possess an array of skills in the deceptive and manipulative arts. He must also be adroit at evading the negative consequences of his actions, for there will certainly be some. However, evasion won’t always be possible; the prime movers in some villainies are impossible to conceal. What he cannot evade, he must deflect.

     Biden has exhibited those skills, though not at the highest levels. He’s needed a lot of help to escape being called to account for his trail of lies. As a Democrat, he’s had the assistance of the media. Yet they are not all-powerful. Biden’s inner guard of handlers and enforcers have had a lot to do these past few decades.

     Biden’s record is now too long. There is no possibility of evasion, and deflection, always a problem for the man at the top, has become implausible. How can you blame others for what it’s perfectly plain that you and only you have done? The past three years have provided conclusive evidence; the public won’t accept any more exculpations.

     So Biden’s handlers, who are probably all but unanimous that he cannot be permitted another term in the Oval Office, face a stark choice: dementia or sociopathy. Athwart that choice and its implications stands another figure they know cannot serve their interests adequately: Kamala Harris. Biden must continue as president in nomine until January 20, 2025, or the walls of their stolen edifice will come tumbling down on them.

     They deserve no sympathy. As for Biden: after what’s been done to us by him and through his purloined powers of office, what sympathy does he deserve?

PolSpeak For The Masses

     If you’ve been a regular Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch for any length of time, you’re surely aware of two things about my crap:

  1. It’s long, wordy, and circuitous;
  2. There’s a lot of it.

     Well, that’s your humble Curmudgeon. I’ve had that sort of writing style all my life, though I struggle against it when writing fiction. But I do eventually get to the point…when I have one. And in the majority of cases the thousand words or so before I get to the point have something approximating a relevance thereto.

     That’s not how politicians speak. Politicians only get to the point when they’re absolutely certain they can advance one of the following aims:

  • Getting your money;
  • Getting your vote;
  • Badmouthing a political adversary.

     The best example of this practice that I recall from recent years was when Bret Baier interviewed Barack Obama on Fox News. Baier strove with herculean intensity to get Obama to answer the questions he asked. He even interrupted The Won several times – shock! horror! – in a vain attempt to force Obama to get to the point. But Obama resisted to the very last, never, ever providing a clear answer to any of Baier’s questions. It was a perfect demonstration of PolSpeak as practiced at the very highest levels of politics.

     One of the things that endeared Donald Trump to millions of Americans is that he eschewed politicians’ sort of blather. He answered questions. He made definite statements. He said openly and unimpeachably that he had done or would do specific things. Some of the things he promised to do, such as the wall on the southern border, never came off, but no one could claim he hadn’t promised them.

     And so, I found the following, which I stole from Irish, both highly educational and exceptionally funny:

     Pass it around. Note the reactions of your victims. And try it yourself! Who knows? If you have the gift for it, you might have a career in politics.

Reinhold Niebuhr Was A Cockeyed Optimist

     Why are you here, Gentle Reader? I don’t ask that question in the metaphysical sense that demands a discussion of theistic cosmogony and the alternatives to it, but rather in the immediate and supremely practical sense. Why are you here, at Liberty’s Torch? What has brought you here, and – should you decide to bookmark us for further enjoyment – what have you found here that makes us worth the precious seconds of your ever-dwindling life?

     Some questions are best confronted by excluding impossible and absurd answers. This may be one such. Let’s try it out:

  1. You’re not here for the recipes;
  2. You’re not here for the free money;
  3. You’re not here for the celebrity nudes;
  4. You’re not here for the scandal-mongering;
  5. You’re not here for the comforting platitudes.

     Shout that last one. Platitudes definitely aren’t “our thing.” We prefer the essential if uncomfortable truths. For many, their greatest need, even if unacknowledged or deliberately suppressed, is to hear plain and unambiguous statements about what is rather than dreamy fantasies about what might be. I and my Co-Conspirators labor here for that reason above all others.

     And we make no apologies for “harshing your mellow.”

***

     “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” – Reinhold Niebuhr

     There are a lot of people who know no prayers but that one. Contemplate it for a moment. Does it stand apart from all other considerations, irrefutable and immutable? Or might there be some aspects to it that deserve intelligent exploration and discussion?

     The “Serenity Prayer” is so named for the first of the emotional attitudes it cites. Yet it’s not about serenity in the extended sense. The full text of the prayer clarifies Niebuhr’s intention:

     God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
     Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.

     If we leave aside the embedded assertions, it’s about discerning God’s will and learning to conform to it without resistance. But discerning God’s will is a rather difficult endeavor. He seldom deigns to explain Himself in layman’s terms. Moreover, there are innumerable theologians and pretenders who’d like to persuade you that: 1) they’ve “cracked the code;” and 2) you really ought to stop asking questions and accept their interpretation. The guru business has room for a lot of contenders.

***

     It’s time to ask some critical questions – critical in the bifurcated sense. First, they’re critical because the answers to them are fundamental to making objective progress of any sort. Second, they’re critical because they compel us to be critical of our own thinking and our own actions. However, I don’t mean to suggest here that the questions I’m about to pose are the only critical questions. These are important, especially considering how seldom they’re addressed, but they’re not alone in their importance.

     Those questions are the reality that lies beneath the platitudinous sentiments of the Serenity Prayer:

  1. What can be changed by men’s decisions and actions;
  2. How can we tell?

     A mighty mind once gave forth a mighty statement whose truth has never been much liked by persons in politics:

     Nevertheless, in the inexplicable universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad, and at this day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be found, whose practical belief it is that if we “vote” this or that, so this or that will thenceforth be…. Practically men have come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of constitutional countries, are decided by voting…. It is an idle fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not fixable or changeable by voting! — Thomas Carlyle

     We might call this the Anti-Political Theorem. It refutes the overwhelmingly greater part of what governments attempt. It demands respect for what cannot be changed. It requires that we concede that there are limits to our power…and if there’s anything politicians and their hangers-on absolutely hate to admit, it’s the limits to their power.

     Some of what cannot be changed is essentially self-evident: the nature of Man; the laws of physics; the requirements for the perpetuation of life; and so on. However, some things that cannot be changed only reveal that characteristic through repeated unsuccessful attempts to change them.

     Admitting to inherent incapacity has never been favored by governments. Thomas Sowell, in talking about the War on Drugs, cited a quote from W. C. Fields: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.” Governments, which possess the privilege of doing to us things that would be illegal, often horrifyingly so, if they were done by private parties, seldom respect reality’s negative verdicts on their power. But on the personal level, what each of us can change involves another debate.

     One thing only is clear about the limits of personal change: Smith cannot change Jones, for any and all values of Smith and Jones.

***

     If you’ve been wondering what the hell I’m circling around this morning, these thoughts were kicked off by this story at the Independent Sentinel:

     The Boston Globe reported that advanced math students were primarily White and Asian, while lower-level courses mostly had Black and Hispanic students. Cambridge Public Schools noticed this trend before, but things only worsened due to the pandemic. This led to all four middle schools in the district axing Algebra I.
     Instead of providing extra help to the minority children and their families so they can do the work, the WOKE schools decided to drag down all the children based on the color of their skin.

     Those two paragraphs are packed with import. The intent of the schools’ decision is plain: We can’t raise black and Hispanic students’ math performance, but we don’t want to admit that, so we’ll conceal the evidence. But the conclusion of the school boards is at odds with the prevailing assumption that what it takes to raise black and Hispanic students’ performance is knowable and doable. Writer Maura Dowling, whom I admire and respect, appears to share that assumption. What evidence is there for its soundness? Are other, similar stories relevant? Are there enough of them to reach a conclusion? If not, why not?

     Decide for yourselves. You know my opinion already.

***

     Reflect on the above, please. Don’t think yourself immune to its import. Stop imagining that you, or “we,” can change what cannot be changed. There’s enough evidence to that effect as regards several quasi-Utopian propositions:

  • Socialism;
  • Human equality;
  • Innate sexual properties;
  • The elimination of vice by law;
  • The corrupting influence of power over others.

     There are surely others, but the margins of this Website are too small to include them. Therefore, allow me to close with a quote from one of Orson Scott Card’s best novels:

     “Reality is the most perfect vision of God’s will. It’s discovering God’s will in advance that causes all the trouble.”

     …and a quote from one of the most neglected, least well understood lay philosophers of the Twentieth Century:

     “There’s only one way to improve society: present it with a single improved unit: yourself.” – Albert Jay Nock.

     And with that, I’m off to Mass. Have a nice day.

An Unmet Need

     These days, I am perpetually weary. I know I’m not alone in that. A great many Americans feel more beleaguered than they’ll openly admit. We’re supposed to be the “Can Do” nation, ready for anything and fully prepared to cope with the worst. (“We walk around with hardons and guns blazing all the time.” – Richard Hoyt) But “the worst” isn’t, pardon the phrasing, the worst of it.

     “The worst” is the noise. The perpetual din. The endless screaming, wailing, moaning, hectoring, begging, and cursing. The ceaseless demands from politicians. The carping from the unsatisfied. The orations of the world-savers. The unending gimme gimme gimme of those who want something they can’t get for themselves and will never realize that no amount of free stuff will make them happy. And of course, the “media” of all varieties, every one of which insists that we must all stay right-up-to-the-minute on What’s Happening Now. Yes, including the bloody Internet.

     The great need of our time is silence. We’re starved for it. The din is making us crazy. We’re unable to cope with its relentlessness. And the greatest of all ironies is that in nearly every case, we collaborate in our own deprivation.

***

     As is usual for me early on a Sunday, I’m getting ready for Mass. My parish holds three Masses per Sunday. Two are, as is apparently customary today, “sung” Masses where the congregation is expected to sing responses and selected hymns at many points. But the earliest one, which I prefer, is essentially silent.

     It strikes me as more appropriate to the Mass than all the singing. The Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, the night before Christ’s Passion was to begin. I find insane the notion that He and the Twelve Apostles celebrated that seder with a lot of peppy songs.

     In case it hasn’t come through clearly, I despise modern “liturgical” music. It strikes me as offensive to the solemnity of the Mass. But my pastor, in all other regards a worthy priest of Christ, is trying to force that music into the 7:30 Sunday Mass, destroying its blessed silence. I have no idea what to say to him…and that’s probably a good thing.

***

     I saw something inexpressibly beautiful a moment ago, over at Gab:

     That is the sort of person America needs today. Someone who will help you resist the din. Someone with whom you can keep company without being obliged to blather. Someone who’ll “keep his mouth shut in a pleasant tone of voice” (Edgar Pangborn) Someone who wants nothing but to share peace in company. Where such people are to be found, I have no idea.

     Dear Gentle Reader, I wish you a day of silence. A day free from the din. A day, whatever its demands on your labor, that makes no demand that you listen. A day when your interior voices are audible, unobstructed by the clamor the world seeks to impose on us.

     That’s all from me for today. May God bless and keep you all.

WHY Trump is Being Charged with Conspiracy in GA

I’ve posted on the Trump indictment before. One charge, in particular, made very little sense.

It’s the first charge in the indictment – Violation of the GA RICO Act. The government seems to be simultaneously insisting that Trump is a ‘Lone Wolf’, whose actions are off the cuff and, for that reason, both unpredictable and highly dangerous. Not a cool-headed mob boss.

So, why RICO?

Money. RICO enables the government to take ALL of his money, business, and property, without a trial verdict of guilty. It’s asset forfeiture, a practice that forces the person so targeted to – separately – PROVE that the wealth wasn’t illegally gained.

The above link is to The Burning Platform, where many of the usual methods government uses to grab ordinary citizens’ money and possessions is detailed. RICO is just one of those methods.

Now, Trump has money in many places. Likely, the government cannot completely tied up his assets. However, under the guise of RICO, they can install “asset managers” who can veto spending his money for discretionary activities, such as campaigning, criminal defense, and support of his social media site, Truth Social.

That whole process is not meant to do much more than provide a minor aggravation to Trump; what it IS designed to do is to send a message to people with assets.

Back off, or you will be next.

It’s intended to financially cripple the opposition.

The Chronicle of the DC: 19Aug23 Maui 2

Goal of the Progs: seat in authority ideologues who care not one whit about preserving human lives. Useful idiots will get added support when they are fully aware of what they are empowered to do: commit mass murder by appearing to be inept while being perfectly protected from criminal charges.

Hawaii official concerned with ‘equity’ delayed releasing water for more than 5 hours as wildfires raged: report

Rest assured, that if he is more than just a useful idiot, he has no conscience about what he did. Sustainability belief provides him with the “morals” that human life is the one thing the planet has too much of.

Please note: “Kaleo Manuel, former deputy director of the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management was a former Obama Foundation Leader who said water was an important tool of social justice.” So, consider this creep as a case example of the product of social justice education that Fran wrote about earlier today.

Right, Wrong, Or Socially Unjust?

     In analyzing the phrase “social justice,” we see how prefixing the word justice with any modifier inverts its meaning. It turns something easily understood – inherently unambiguous, in fact – into something for noisy groups to argue and negotiate. But then, attempts to redefine “justice” to accommodate some trendy Cause are as old as Mankind itself. What’s newsworthy is the noisy groups’ attempt to redefine mathematics:

     The California State Board of Education issued on July 12 a new framework for teaching math based on what it calls “updated principles of focus, coherence, and rigor.” The word “updated” is certainly accurate. Not so much “principles,” “focus,” “coherence” or “rigor.” California’s new approach to math is as unfair as it is unserious.

     The framework is voluntary, but it will heavily influence school districts and teachers around the Golden State. Developed over the past four years, it runs nearly 1,000 pages. Among the titles of its 14 chapters are “Teaching for Equity and Engagement,” “Structuring School Experiences for Equity and Engagement” and “Supporting Educators in Offering Equitable and Engaging Mathematics Instruction.” The guidelines demand that math teachers be “committed to social justice work” to “equip students with a toolkit and mindset to identify and combat inequities with mathematics”—not with the ability to do math. Far more important is teaching students that “mathematics plays a role in the power structures and privileges that exist within our society.”

     California’s education bureaucrats are seeking to reinvent math as a grievance study. “Big ideas are central to the learning of mathematics,” the framework insists, but the only big idea the document promotes is that unequal outcomes in math performance are proof of a racist society.

     This is not a perfectly new phenomenon. I remember, from the early nineties, some aggrieved bitch on WCBS-AM ranting that the idea of a “right answer” to a math problem is inherently faulty. “There are good answers, and there are answers that are less good,” she said. She condemned the teaching of arithmetic and any higher use of mathematics for that reason. I suspected immediately that she, or perhaps one of her children, had failed a math test and she was determined to get back at someone. Why the program directors at WCBS radio gave her airtime, I cannot know.

     Tell me, Gentle Reader: Once we omit the possibility of a “right answer,” what remains. BRRRING! Got it one, didn’t you, you clever fellow! What remains is opinion. And as we know from what the world has come to call Porretto’s Anatomical Axiom:


Opinions Are Like Assholes:
Everyone’s Gotta Have One.

     “Social justice” is always someone’s opinion, no matter the subject, time, place, or circumstances. It is never a fixed, objectively correct thing. Indeed, in a realm that demands fixed rules and absolute adherence to them, “social justice” has no place. Mathematics is such a realm. Moreover, the statistical superiority at math of men over women, whites over blacks, and the careful over the casual reveals that some groups just aren’t as good at math as others. Ergo, as we mathematical types like to say, the Left must destroy traditional mathematics education as “socially unjust.” (Have a quod erat demonstrandum for lagniappe.)

     One of my stepdaughters gravitated to mathematics early in life. She found that she loved it because for once there were right answers to the problems she was set. There was no room for opinion – including that of her math teacher. It led her to an enduring love of the sciences, of which mathematics is the foundation. Today she teaches the sciences in a nearby school district.

     The educational goal of the Left is to establish as dogma that there are no right answers in any realm of thought. The destruction of mathematics education is central to that aim. Imagine what would happen to the more powerful, more inquisitive minds among our young were they to be convinced of that proposition. If all things are a matter of opinion, and no one’s opinion is better than anyone else’s, where is knowledge? What happens to the concept of truth? Would there be any hope for the continuation of scientific inquiry? And what about engineering? Would things designed and built by our posterity work?

     Feel free to shudder.

     If it cannot be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. – Robert A. Heinlein

News Tokenism

     Tokenism usually refers to the inclusion of a member of some group perceived as “victimized” or “a dispreferred minority.” But there are varieties of tokenism that are unconcerned with such things. Tokenism in the news media can mean grudgingly mentioning something unfavorable to the Left. Here’s an example from CNN:

     TAPPER: Yes. And Kristen, Glenn Kessler from “The Washington Post” had a fact check about Joe Biden from earlier this month noting that Hunter Biden admitted in court in July that he was, in fact, paid substantial sums from Chinese companies. Kessler wrote, Hunter Biden reported nearly 2.4 million income in 2017 and 2.2 million income in 2018, most of which came from Chinese or Ukrainian interests. But this — and this directly goes against what Joe Biden said in the debate in 2020 with Donald Trump. Take a listen.

     (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

     [17:35:32]

     JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My son has not made money in terms of this thing about what are you talking about, what are you talking about, China.

     (CROSSTALK)

     DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He made a fortune in Ukraine, in China, in Moscow —

     BIDEN: That is simply not true.

     TRUMP: — and various other places.

     (END VIDEO CLIP)

     TAPPER: So this is from two different debates. But I mean, Trump was right. I mean, he did make a fortune from China, and Joe Biden was wrong. I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter. But this blind spot is a problem.

     ANDERSON: It’s a problem, one, because Republicans aren’t going to let it go, that’s for sure. But also these problems are continuing through the legal system. It’s not as though this is something that’s been settled in other jurisdictions, and Republicans are just harping on it. It is an ongoing thing in our courts. It’s not going anywhere.

     TAPPER: This is a blind spot. Does it concern you as a Democrat?

     LEVIN: Well, I think dads sometimes and parents sometimes have blind spots about their kids, for sure, and the President may be no exception. But nothing has tied the President to any of Hunter Biden’s dealings. There’s no whiff of him being involved or him being implicated in it. And it’s, you know, I think it’s not something the voters care a lot about.

     TAPPER: All right, my thanks to the panel. Thanks once again.

     Joe Biden is allergic to truth. His entire political career has been founded on lies. He lies by preference. But no Democrat partisan will admit this, nor even hint at Biden’s adversary relationship with the truth, despite mountains of evidence reaching back fifty years. And, for completeness, note the mandatory “Republicans pounce” motif near the end.

     That gallon jug of Carlo Rossi Chablis has been looking better and better, hasn’t it?

Attitude Adjuster

     You say your country’s been stolen from you? That the man in the big chair is a vegetable, his administration is filled with lunatics, and his son is a degenerate? That the “woke” military you pay a trillion a year for couldn’t beat Equatorial Guinea? That your throat is hoarse from hollering, your ballot has become a joke, and your money wouldn’t even make good toilet paper? Is that your problem, Bunkie?

     Well, not everything is darkness and despair:

     Always try to look on the bright side.

Load more